↓ Skip to main content

Neurofascin (NF)155- and NF186-Specific T Cell Response in a Patient Developing a Central Pontocerebellar Demyelination after 10 Years of CIDP

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Neurofascin (NF)155- and NF186-Specific T Cell Response in a Patient Developing a Central Pontocerebellar Demyelination after 10 Years of CIDP
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00724
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliane Klehmet, Max Staudt, Jan-Markus Diederich, Eberhard Siebert, Edgar Meinl, Lutz Harms, Andreas Meisel

Abstract

Information and pathobiological understanding about central demyelinating manifestation in patients, who primarily suffer from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), are scarce. IFN-γ-response as well as antibodies against the (para)nodal antigens neurofascin (NF)155 and NF 186 had been tested by Elispot assay and ELISA before clinical manifestation and at follow-up. The patient described here developed a subacute brainstem syndrome more than 10 years after diagnosis of CIDP under low-dose maintenance treatment of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). MRI revealed enhancing right-sided pontocerebellar lesion. CSF examination showed mild pleocytosis and elevated protein, and negative oligoclonal bands. Further diagnostics exclude differential diagnoses such as tuberculoma, sarcoidosis, or metastasis. Specific IFN-γ response against NF155 and NF186 as measured by Elispot assay was elevated before clinical manifestation. NF155 and NF186 antibodies were negative. Escalation of IVIG treatment at 2 g/kg BW followed by 1.4 g/kg BW led to clinical remission albeit to a new asymptomatic central lesion. Follow-up NF155 and NF186-Elispot turned negative. The case reported here with a delayed central manifestation after an initially typical CIDP and NF155 and NF186 T cell responses does not resemble described cases of combined central and peripheral demyelination but may reflect a novel subtype within the great clinical heterogeneity of CIDP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 23%
Student > Master 3 23%
Other 1 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 15%
Neuroscience 2 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%

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 25 December 2017.
All research outputs
#10,943,208
of 12,348,212 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#2,120
of 2,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,345
of 348,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#207
of 277 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,348,212 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,953 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 348,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 277 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.