↓ Skip to main content

In vitro Intestinal Mucosal Epithelial Responses to Wild-Type Salmonella Typhi and Attenuated Typhoid Vaccines

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
In vitro Intestinal Mucosal Epithelial Responses to Wild-Type Salmonella Typhi and Attenuated Typhoid Vaccines
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Fiorentino, Karen M. Lammers, Myron M. Levine, Marcelo B. Sztein, Alessio Fasano

Abstract

Typhoid fever, caused by S. Typhi, is responsible for approximately 200,000 deaths per year worldwide. Little information is available regarding epithelium-bacterial interactions in S. Typhi infection. We have evaluated in vitro the effects of wild-type S. Typhi, the licensed Ty21a typhoid vaccine and the leading strains CVD 908-htrA and CVD 909 vaccine candidates on intestinal barrier function and immune response. Caco2 monolayers infected with wild-type S. Typhi exhibited alterations in the organization of tight junctions, increased paracellular permeability, and a rapid decrease in Trans-Epithelial Electrical Resistance as early as 4 h post-exposure. S. Typhi triggered the secretion of interleukin (IL)-8 and IL-6. Caco2 cells infected with the attenuated strains exhibited a milder pro-inflammatory response with minimal disruption of the barrier integrity. We conclude that wild-type S. Typhi causes marked transient alterations of the intestinal mucosa that are more pronounced than those observed with Ty21a or new generation attenuated typhoid vaccine candidates.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 39 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 24%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 9 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 27%
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 2013.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#27,412
of 31,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,410
of 288,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#335
of 503 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 288,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 503 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.