↓ Skip to main content

Application of phospho-CyTOF to characterize immune activation in patients with sickle cell disease in an ex vivo model of thrombosis

Overview of attention for article published in Immunotechnology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Application of phospho-CyTOF to characterize immune activation in patients with sickle cell disease in an ex vivo model of thrombosis
Published in
Immunotechnology, July 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jim.2017.07.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey Glassberg, Adeeb H. Rahman, Mohammad Zafar, Caroline Cromwell, Alexa Punzalan, Juan Jose Badimon, Louis Aledort

Abstract

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a genetic disease caused by mutations in the beta globin gene, and inflammation plays a key role in driving many aspects of disease pathology. Early immune activation is believed to be associated with hemodynamic stresses and thrombus formation as cells traffic through blood vessels. We applied an extracorporeal perfusion system to model these effects ex vivo, and combined this with a phospho-CyTOF workflow to comprehensively evaluate single-cell signatures of early activation across all major circulating immune subsets. These approaches showed immune activation following passage through the perfusion chamber, most notably in monocytes, which exhibited platelet aggregation and significantly elevated expression of multiple phospho-proteins. Overall, these studies outline a robust and broadly applicable workflow to leverage phospho-CyTOF to characterize immune activation in response to ex vivo or in vivo perturbations and may facilitate identification of novel therapeutic targets in SCD and other inflammatory diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Other 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Master 3 12%
Professor 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 23%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 8%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2020.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Immunotechnology
#4,500
of 4,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,628
of 326,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Immunotechnology
#17
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,810 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.