↓ Skip to main content

Pathogen-Host Interactions: Antigenic Variation v. Somatic Adaptations

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 7: An Immune Effector System in the Protochordate Gut Sheds Light on Fundamental Aspects of Vertebrate Immunity.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
An Immune Effector System in the Protochordate Gut Sheds Light on Fundamental Aspects of Vertebrate Immunity.
Chapter number 7
Book title
Pathogen-Host Interactions: Antigenic Variation v. Somatic Adaptations
Published in
Results and problems in cell differentiation, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-20819-0_7
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-920818-3, 978-3-31-920819-0
Authors

Liberti, Assunta, Leigh, Brittany, De Santis, Rosaria, Pinto, Maria Rosaria, Cannon, John P, Dishaw, Larry J, Litman, Gary W, Assunta Liberti, Brittany Leigh, Rosaria De Santis, Maria Rosaria Pinto, John P. Cannon, Larry J. Dishaw, Gary W. Litman

Abstract

A variety of germline and somatic immune mechanisms have evolved in vertebrate and invertebrate species to detect a wide array of pathogenic invaders. The gut is a particularly significant site in terms of distinguishing pathogens from potentially beneficial microbes. Ciona intestinalis, a filter-feeding marine protochordate that is ancestral to the vertebrate form, possesses variable region-containing chitin-binding proteins (VCBPs), a family of innate immune receptors, which recognize bacteria through an immunoglobulin-type variable region. The manner in which VCBPs mediate immune recognition appears to be related to the development and bacterial colonization of the gut, and it is likely that these molecules are critical elements in achieving overall immune and physiological homeostasis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 50%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 17%
Other 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 33%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
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 16 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,430,119
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Results and problems in cell differentiation
#134
of 217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,915
of 353,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Results and problems in cell differentiation
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 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 217 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 353,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.