↓ Skip to main content

IFN Signaling: How a Non-Canonical Model Led to the Development of IFN Mimetics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 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
IFN Signaling: How a Non-Canonical Model Led to the Development of IFN Mimetics
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00202
Pubmed ID
Authors

Howard M. Johnson, Ezra Neptune Noon-Song, Rea Dabelic, Chulbul M. Ahmed

Abstract

The classical model of cytokine signaling dominates our view of specific gene activation by cytokines such as the interferons (IFNs). The importance of the model extends beyond cytokines and applies to hormones such as growth hormone (GH) and insulin, and growth factors such as epidermal growth factor (EGF) and fibroblast growth factor (FGF). According to this model, ligand activates the cell via interaction with the extracellular domain of the receptor. This results in activation of receptor or receptor-associated tyrosine kinases, primarily of the Janus activated kinase (JAK) family, phosphorylation and dimerization of the signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) transcription factors, which dissociate from the receptor cytoplasmic domain and translocate to the nucleus. This view ascribes no further role to the ligand, JAK kinase, or receptor in either specific gene activation or the associated epigenetic events. The presence of dimeric STATs in the nucleus essentially explains it all. Our studies have resulted in the development of a non-canonical, more complex model of IFNγ signaling that is akin to that of steroid hormone (SH)/steroid receptor (SR) signaling. We have shown that ligand, receptor, activated JAKs, and STATs are associated with specific gene activation, where the receptor subunit IFNGR1 functions as a co-transcription factor and the JAKs are involved in associated epigenetic events. We found that the type I IFN system functions similarly. The fact that GH receptor, insulin receptor, EGF receptor, and FGF receptor undergo nuclear translocation upon ligand binding suggests that they may also function similarly. The SH/SR nature of type I and II IFN signaling provides insight into the specificity of signaling by members of cytokine families. The non-canonical model could also provide better understanding to more complex cytokine families such as those of IL-2 and IL-12, whose members often use the same JAKs and STATs, but also have different functions and properties.

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 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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 46%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 24%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 4 11%
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 27 July 2013.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#22,573
of 31,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,304
of 288,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#240
of 503 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,516 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 288,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 503 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.