↓ Skip to main content

An interactive reference framework for modeling a dynamic immune system

Overview of attention for article published in Science, July 2015
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
24 tweeters
1 Facebook page


135 Dimensions

Readers on

574 Mendeley
6 CiteULike
An interactive reference framework for modeling a dynamic immune system
Published in
Science, July 2015
DOI 10.1126/science.1259425
Pubmed ID

M. H. Spitzer, P. F. Gherardini, G. K. Fragiadakis, N. Bhattacharya, R. T. Yuan, A. N. Hotson, R. Finck, Y. Carmi, E. R. Zunder, W. J. Fantl, S. C. Bendall, E. G. Engleman, G. P. Nolan


Immune cells function in an interacting hierarchy that coordinates the activities of various cell types according to genetic and environmental contexts. We developed graphical approaches to construct an extensible immune reference map from mass cytometry data of cells from different organs, incorporating landmark cell populations as flags on the map to compare cells from distinct samples. The maps recapitulated canonical cellular phenotypes and revealed reproducible, tissue-specific deviations. The approach revealed influences of genetic variation and circadian rhythms on immune system structure, enabled direct comparisons of murine and human blood cell phenotypes, and even enabled archival fluorescence-based flow cytometry data to be mapped onto the reference framework. This foundational reference map provides a working definition of systemic immune organization to which new data can be integrated to reveal deviations driven by genetics, environment, or pathology.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 574 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 12 2%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Japan 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 7 1%
Unknown 537 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 166 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 161 28%
Other 39 7%
Student > Master 38 7%
Student > Postgraduate 28 5%
Other 101 18%
Unknown 41 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 207 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 85 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 85 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 63 11%
Engineering 21 4%
Other 59 10%
Unknown 54 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 10 June 2020.
All research outputs
of 15,418,159 outputs
Outputs from Science
of 66,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 233,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
of 1,250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,418,159 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 66,545 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 50.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 233,304 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,250 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 53% of its contemporaries.