↓ Skip to main content

DQB1*0602 rather than DRB1*1501 confers susceptibility to multiple sclerosis-like disease induced by proteolipid protein (PLP)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroinflammation, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
DQB1*0602 rather than DRB1*1501 confers susceptibility to multiple sclerosis-like disease induced by proteolipid protein (PLP)
Published in
Journal of Neuroinflammation, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1742-2094-9-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathali Kaushansky, Daniel M Altmann, Chella S David, Hans Lassmann, Avraham Ben-Nun

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with pathogenic autoimmunity primarily focused on major CNS-myelin target antigens including myelin basic protein (MBP), proteolipidprotein (PLP), myelin oligodendrocyte protein (MOG). MS is a complex trait whereby the HLA genes, particularly class-II genes of HLA-DR15 haplotype, dominate the genetic contribution to disease-risk. Due to strong linkage disequilibrium in HLA-II region, it has been hard to establish precisely whether the functionally relevant effect derives from the DRB1*1501, DQA1*0102-DQB1*0602, or DRB5*0101 loci of HLA-DR15 haplotype, their combinations, or their epistatic interactions. Nevertheless, most genetic studies have indicated DRB1*1501 as a primary risk factor in MS. Here, we used 'HLA-humanized' mice to discern the potential relative contribution of DRB1*1501 and DQB1*0602 alleles to susceptibility to "humanized" MS-like disease induced by PLP, one of the most prominent and encephalitogenic target-antigens implicated in human MS.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 5%
Netherlands 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 50 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 5 9%
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 12 February 2012.
All research outputs
#18,304,230
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#2,045
of 2,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,171
of 247,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#34
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 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 2,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 247,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.