↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Analysis of Clinical-Scale IFN-γ-Positive T-Cell Enrichment Using Partially and Fully Integrated Platforms

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Comparative Analysis of Clinical-Scale IFN-γ-Positive T-Cell Enrichment Using Partially and Fully Integrated Platforms
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00393
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Priesner, Ruth Esser, Sabine Tischer, Michael Marburger, Krasimira Aleksandrova, Britta Maecker-Kolhoff, Hans-Gert Heuft, Lilia Goudeva, Rainer Blasczyk, Lubomir Arseniev, Ulrike Köhl, Britta Eiz-Vesper, Stephan Klöß

Abstract

The infusion of enriched CMV-specific donor T-cells appears to be a suitable alternative for the treatment of drug-resistant CMV reactivation or de novo infection after both solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Antiviral lymphocytes can be selected from apheresis products using the CliniMACS Cytokine-Capture-System(®) either with the well-established CliniMACS(®) Plus (Plus) device or with its more versatile successor CliniMACS Prodigy(®) (Prodigy). Manufacturing of CMV-specific T-cells was carried out with the Prodigy and Plus in parallel starting with 0.8-1 × 10(9) leukocytes collected by lymphapheresis (n = 3) and using the MACS GMP PepTivator(®) HCMVpp65 for antigenic restimulation. Target and non-target cells were quantified by a newly developed single-platform assessment and gating strategy using positive (CD3/CD4/CD8/CD45/IFN-γ), negative (CD14/CD19/CD56), and dead cell (7-AAD) discriminators. Both devices produced largely similar results for target cell viabilities: 37.2-52.2% (Prodigy) vs. 51.1-62.1% (Plus) CD45(+)/7-AAD(-) cells. Absolute numbers of isolated target cells were 0.1-3.8 × 10(6) viable IFN-γ(+) CD3(+) T-cells. The corresponding proportions of IFN-γ(+) CD3(+) T-cells ranged between 19.2 and 95.1% among total CD3(+) T-cells and represented recoveries of 41.9-87.6%. Within two parallel processes, predominantly IFN-γ(+) CD3(+)CD8(+) cytotoxic T-cells were enriched compared to one process that yielded a higher amount of IFN-γ(+) CD3(+)CD4(+) helper T lymphocytes. T-cell purity was higher for the Prodigies products that displayed a lower content of contaminating IFN-γ(-) T-cells (3.6-20.8%) compared to the Plus products (19.9-80.0%). The manufacturing process on the Prodigy saved both process and hands-on time due to its higher process integration and ability for unattended operation. Although the usage of both instruments yielded comparable results, the lower content of residual IFN-γ(-) T-cells in the target fractions produced with the Prodigy may allow for a higher dosage of CMV-specific donor T-cells without increasing the risk for graft-versus-host disease.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 32%
Other 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 16%
Engineering 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 02 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,709,974
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#4,150
of 31,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,575
of 330,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#23
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 330,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.