↓ Skip to main content

Inflammasome Signaling and Bacterial Infections

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 12: Inflammasome Signaling and Bacterial Infections
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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.
Chapter title
Inflammasome Signaling and Bacterial Infections
Chapter number 12
Book title
Inflammasome Signaling and Bacterial Infections
Published in
Current topics in microbiology and immunology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41171-2_12
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-941170-5, 978-3-31-941171-2
Authors

Wallet, Pierre, Lagrange, Brice, Henry, Thomas, Pierre Wallet, Brice Lagrange, Thomas Henry

Abstract

Francisella tularensis is a facultative intracellular bacterium causing tularemia, a zoonotic disease. Francisella replicates in the macrophage cytosol and eventually triggers cytosolic immune responses. In murine macrophages, Francisella novicida and Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain lyse in the host cytosol and activate the cytosolic DNA receptor Aim2. Here, we review the mechanisms leading or contributing to Aim2 inflammasome activation, including the role of TLRs and of IFN signaling and the implication of the guanylate-binding proteins 2 and 5 in triggering cytosolic bacteriolysis. Furthermore, we present how this cytosolic Gram-negative bacterium escapes recognition by caspase-11 but can trigger a non-canonical caspase-8 inflammasome. In addition, we highlight the differences in inflammasome activation in murine and human cells with pyrin, NLRP3, and AIM2 involved in sensing Francisella in human phagocytes. From a bacterial prospective, we describe the hiding strategy of Francisella to escape recognition by innate sensors and to resist to bacteriolysis in the host cytosol. Finally, we discuss the inability of the inflammasome sensors to detect F. tularensis subspecies tularensis strains, making them highly pathogenic stealth microbes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 47%
Student > Master 3 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 6 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%
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 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,466,751
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Current topics in microbiology and immunology
#528
of 679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,548
of 393,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current topics in microbiology and immunology
#35
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 393,701 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.