↓ Skip to main content

Viral Evasion Strategies in Type I IFN Signaling – A Summary of Recent Developments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, November 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Viral Evasion Strategies in Type I IFN Signaling – A Summary of Recent Developments
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00498
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharina S. Schulz, Karen L. Mossman

Abstract

The immune system protects the organism against infections and the damage associated with them. The first line of defense against pathogens is the innate immune response. In the case of a viral infection, it induces the interferon (IFN) signaling cascade and eventually the expression of type I IFN, which then causes an antiviral state in the cells. However, many viruses have developed strategies to counteract this mechanism and prevent the production of IFN. In order to modulate or inhibit the IFN signaling cascade in their favor, viruses have found ways to interfere at every single step of the cascade, for example, by inducing protein degradation or cleavage, or by mediate protein polyubiquitination. In this article, we will review examples of viruses that modulate the IFN response and describe the mechanisms they use.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

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

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 22%
Student > Bachelor 20 17%
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 32 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 21 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 08 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,450,972
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#1,270
of 31,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,821
of 316,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#8
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 316,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.