↓ Skip to main content

Facilitated Peptide Transport via the Mucosal Epithelium: Impact on Tolerance Induction

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
4 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
Facilitated Peptide Transport via the Mucosal Epithelium: Impact on Tolerance Induction
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00216
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth E. Kenngott, Jennifer Pfeil, Ute Hoffmann, Uta Lauer, Anja A. Kühl, Anne Rigby, Anton Pernthaner, Alf Hamann

Abstract

A hallmark of autoimmunity is the breakdown of tolerance and generation of effector responses against self-antigens. Re-establishment of tolerance in autoimmune disorders was always the most desired treatment option; however, despite many efforts, clinical trials have been largely unsuccessful. This also applies to the generation of oral tolerance, which seems to be a default response type of the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissues to harmless antigens. In this study, we report improved efficacy of oral tolerance induction by coupling antigen with the newly identified mucosal carrier peptide 13C. Antigen coupled to 13C is efficiently taken up in the gastrointestinal tract and could be visualized in cells of the lamina propria. Oral, rectal, or nasal treatment effectively induced the proliferation of antigen-specific T cells with some increase in the frequency of regulatory T cells. In a model of delayed-type hypersensitivity, especially intrarectal tolerization treatment resulted in reduced footpad swelling, demonstrating a moderate tolerogenic effect of mucosal treatment with 13C coupled antigen. Coupling of antigens to a transmucosal carrier, therefore, is a promising tool to improve the efficacy of vaccination via mucosal surfaces.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 50%
Student > Postgraduate 1 25%
Student > Master 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 50%
Social Sciences 1 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 25%
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 14 March 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#27,431
of 31,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,212
of 324,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#396
of 427 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 31,531 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 324,513 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 427 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.