↓ Skip to main content

Natural Killer Group 2, Member D/NKG2D Ligands in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, March 2017
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
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Natural Killer Group 2, Member D/NKG2D Ligands in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00368
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raphael Carapito, Ismail Aouadi, Wassila Ilias, Seiamak Bahram

Abstract

Natural killer group 2, member D (NKG2D) is an invariant activatory receptor present on subsets of natural killer and T lymphocytes. It stimulates the cytolytic effector response upon engagement of its various stress-induced ligands NKG2D ligands (NKG2DL). Malignant transformation and conditioning treatment prior to hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are stress factors leading to the activation of the NKG2D/NKG2DL signaling in clinical settings. In the context of HCT, NKG2D-bearing cells can kill both tumor and healthy cells expressing NKG2DL. The NKG2D/NKG2DL engagement has therefore a key role in the regulation of one of the most salient issues in allogeneic HCT, i.e., maintaining a balance between graft-vs.-leukemia effect and graft-vs.-host disease. The present review summarizes the current state of our knowledge pertaining to the role of the NKG2D and NKG2DL in HCT.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 29%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Professor 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 25%
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 15 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#14,217
of 31,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,192
of 323,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#275
of 432 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 323,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 432 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.