↓ Skip to main content

Type I Interferons in Bacterial Infections: Taming of Myeloid Cells and Possible Implications for Autoimmunity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Type I Interferons in Bacterial Infections: Taming of Myeloid Cells and Possible Implications for Autoimmunity
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00431
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily M. Eshleman, Laurel L. Lenz

Abstract

Type I interferons (IFNs) were first described for their ability to protect the host from viral infections and may also have beneficial effects under specific conditions within some bacterial infections. Yet, these pleiotropic cytokines are now known to exacerbate infections by numerous life-threatening bacteria, including the intracellular pathogens Listeria monocytogenes and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The evidence that such detrimental effects occur during bacterial infections in both animals and humans argues for selective pressure. In this review, we summarize the evidence demonstrating a pro-bacterial role for type I IFNs and discuss possible mechanisms that have been proposed to explain such effects. The theme emerges that type I IFNs act to suppress myeloid cell immune responses. The evolutionary conservation of such anti-inflammatory effects, particularly in the context of infections, suggests they may be important for limiting chronic inflammation. Given the effectiveness of type I IFNs in treatment of certain autoimmune diseases, their production may also act to raise the threshold for activation of immune responses to self-antigens.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 40%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 47%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 5 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 September 2014.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#18,323
of 31,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,773
of 250,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#86
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,516 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 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 250,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.