↓ Skip to main content

Detection of intracellular IgD using flow cytometry could be a novel and supplementary method to diagnose IgD multiple myeloma

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Detection of intracellular IgD using flow cytometry could be a novel and supplementary method to diagnose IgD multiple myeloma
Published in
BMC Cancer, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4562-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei Wang, Chun-Xia Zhang, Zhen-Ling Li, Ming Gong, Yi-Gai Ma

Abstract

We examined whether detecting the heavy chain of cytoplasmic immunoglobulin D (IgD) by flow cytometry could be used as a supplemental method to diagnose IgD multiple myeloma (MM). Bone marrow (BM) samples of thirty-five patients with MM were collected. Five of them were IgD MM, the rest of thirty were other subtypes of MM. Antibodies to four types of heavy chains of immunoglobulin (e.g., IgA, IgG, IgM, and IgD) were analyzed by flow cytometry in each patient's BM sample. The five IgD MM patients were all positive for cytoplasmic IgD. The percentage of IgD positive MM cells among nucleated cells varied from 0.4 to 12.9%. Cytoplasmic IgG was positive in eight patients with IgG MM (n = 9); cytoplasmic IgA was positive in all patients with IgA MM (n = 10); cytoplasmic IgM was positive in one patient with IgM MM (n = 1). No heavy chain was detected in light chain MM (n = 9) and non-secretory subtype (n = 1). Detection of cytoplasmic IgD by flow cytometry is a convenient, sensitive and supplemental method to diagnose IgD MM.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Other 1 10%
Lecturer 1 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Researcher 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Unknown 4 40%
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 10 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,545,423
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#4,158
of 8,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,770
of 328,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#91
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,387 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 328,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.