↓ Skip to main content

CEACAM1: contact-dependent control of immunity

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Immunology, June 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
patent
18 patents
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
431 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
290 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
CEACAM1: contact-dependent control of immunity
Published in
Nature Reviews Immunology, June 2006
DOI 10.1038/nri1864
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott D. Gray-Owen, Richard S. Blumberg

Abstract

The carcinoembryonic-antigen-related cell-adhesion molecule (CEACAM) family of proteins has been implicated in various intercellular-adhesion and intracellular-signalling-mediated effects that govern the growth and differentiation of normal and cancerous cells. Recent studies show that there is an important role for members of the CEACAM family in modulating the immune responses associated with infection, inflammation and cancer. In this Review, we consider the evidence for CEACAM involvement in immunity, with a particular emphasis on CEACAM1, which functions as a regulatory co-receptor for both lymphoid and myeloid cell types.

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 290 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 281 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 59 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 18%
Student > Bachelor 33 11%
Student > Master 24 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 7%
Other 52 18%
Unknown 51 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 84 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 39 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 36 12%
Chemistry 4 1%
Other 21 7%
Unknown 58 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 12 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,652,697
of 23,959,899 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Immunology
#685
of 2,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,678
of 66,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Immunology
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,959,899 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
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 66,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.