↓ Skip to main content

Nucleic acids and endosomal pattern recognition: how to tell friend from foe?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Nucleic acids and endosomal pattern recognition: how to tell friend from foe?
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fcimb.2013.00037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Brencicova, Sandra S. Diebold

Abstract

The innate immune system has evolved endosomal and cytoplasmic receptors for the detection of viral nucleic acids as sensors for virus infection. Some of these pattern recognition receptors (PRR) detect features of viral nucleic acids that are not found in the host such as long stretches of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) and uncapped single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) in case of Toll-like receptor (TLR) 3 and RIG-I, respectively. In contrast, TLR7/8 and TLR9 are unable to distinguish between viral and self-nucleic acids on the grounds of distinct molecular patterns. The ability of these endosomal TLR to act as PRR for viral nucleic acids seems to rely solely on the mode of access to the endolysosomal compartment in which recognition takes place. The current dogma states that self-nucleic acids do not enter the TLR-sensing compartment under normal physiological conditions. However, it is still poorly understood how dendritic cells (DC) evade activation by self-nucleic acids, in particular with regard to specific DC subsets, which are specialized in taking up material from dying cells for cross-presentation of cell-associated antigens. In this review we discuss the current understanding of how the immune system distinguishes between foreign and self-nucleic acids and point out some of the key aspects that still require further research and clarification.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 127 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 27%
Researcher 23 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 11%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 18 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 51 38%
Immunology and Microbiology 21 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 21 16%
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 26 December 2018.
All research outputs
#17,691,546
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#4,030
of 6,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,191
of 280,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#60
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 280,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.