↓ Skip to main content

Defining Immune Engagement Thresholds for In Vivo Control of Virus-Driven Lymphoproliferation

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Pathogens, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Defining Immune Engagement Thresholds for In Vivo Control of Virus-Driven Lymphoproliferation
Published in
PLoS Pathogens, June 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004220
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristina Godinho-Silva, Sofia Marques, Diana Fontinha, Henrique Veiga-Fernandes, Philip G. Stevenson, J. Pedro Simas

Abstract

Persistent infections are subject to constant surveillance by CD8+ cytotoxic T cells (CTL). Their control should therefore depend on MHC class I-restricted epitope presentation. Many epitopes are described for γ-herpesviruses and form a basis for prospective immunotherapies and vaccines. However the quantitative requirements of in vivo immune control for epitope presentation and recognition remain poorly defined. We used Murid Herpesvirus-4 (MuHV-4) to determine for a latently expressed viral epitope how MHC class-I binding and CTL functional avidity impact on host colonization. Tracking MuHV-4 recombinants that differed only in epitope presentation, we found little latitude for sub-optimal MHC class I binding before immune control failed. By contrast, control remained effective across a wide range of T cell functional avidities. Thus, we could define critical engagement thresholds for the in vivo immune control of virus-driven B cell proliferation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 43%
Researcher 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Librarian 1 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 43%
Social Sciences 2 29%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 September 2015.
All research outputs
#1,411,024
of 5,579,069 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Pathogens
#2,115
of 4,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,295
of 135,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Pathogens
#67
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,579,069 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 63rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,082 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 135,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.