↓ Skip to main content

NET Confusion

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
NET Confusion
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00259
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalia Malachowa, Scott D. Kobayashi, Mark T. Quinn, Frank R. DeLeo

Abstract

Neutrophils are arguably the most important white blood cell for defense against bacterial and fungal infections. These leukocytes are produced in high numbers on a daily basis in humans and are recruited rapidly to injured/infected tissues. Phagocytosis and subsequent intraphagosomal killing and digestion of microbes have historically been the accepted means by which neutrophils carry out their role in innate host defense. Indeed, neutrophils contain and produce numerous cytotoxic molecules, including antimicrobial peptides, proteases, and reactive oxygen species, that are highly effective at killing the vast majority of ingested microbes. On the other hand, it is these characteristics - high numbers and toxicity - that endow neutrophils with the potential to injure and destroy host tissues. This potential is borne out by many inflammatory processes and diseases. Therefore, it is not surprising that host mechanisms exist to control virtually all steps in the neutrophil activation process and to prevent unintended neutrophil activation and/or lysis during the resolution of inflammatory responses or during steady-state turnover. The notion that neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) form by cytolysis as a standard host defense mechanism seems inconsistent with these aforementioned neutrophil "containment" processes. It is with this caveat in mind that we provide perspective on the role of NETs in human host defense and disease.

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 2 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 24%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor 6 9%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 18 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 9 13%
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 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#21,321,046
of 26,171,302 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#25,510
of 32,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,492
of 369,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#100
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,171,302 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 369,609 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.