↓ Skip to main content

Autophagy in Mycobacterium tuberculosis and HIV infections

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Autophagy in Mycobacterium tuberculosis and HIV infections
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fcimb.2015.00049
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucile Espert, Bruno Beaumelle, Isabelle Vergne

Abstract

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) are among the most lethal human pathogens worldwide, each being responsible for around 1.5 million deaths annually. Moreover, synergy between acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and tuberculosis (TB) has turned HIV/M.tb co-infection into a major public health threat in developing countries. In the past decade, autophagy, a lysosomal catabolic process, has emerged as a major host immune defense mechanism against infectious agents like M.tb and HIV. Nevertheless, in some instances, autophagy machinery appears to be instrumental for HIV infection. Finally, there is mounting evidence that both pathogens deploy various countermeasures to thwart autophagy. This mini-review proposes an overview of the roles and regulations of autophagy in HIV and M.tb infections with an emphasis on microbial factors. We also discuss the role of autophagy manipulation in the context of HIV/M.tb co-infection. In future, a comprehensive understanding of autophagy interaction with these pathogens will be critical for development of autophagy-based prophylactic and therapeutic interventions for AIDS and TB.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 124 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 24%
Student > Master 23 18%
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 28%
Immunology and Microbiology 22 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 23 18%
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 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#19,730,950
of 24,248,886 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#5,521
of 7,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,891
of 271,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,248,886 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 271,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.