↓ Skip to main content

Proteases: Essential Actors in Processing Antigens and Intracellular Toll-Like Receptors

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Proteases: Essential Actors in Processing Antigens and Intracellular Toll-Like Receptors
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00299
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bénédicte Manoury

Abstract

MHC class II molecules expressed by professional antigen presenting cells (pAPCs) such as macrophages, B cells, and dendritic cells (DCs) play a fundamental role in presenting peptides to CD4(+) T cells. However, to elicit CD4(+)-T cells immunity, pAPCs need an additional signal, which can be delivered by toll-like receptors (TLRs) molecules. TLRs recognize microbial patterns and are critical in initiating immune responses. Proteases, which provide peptide ligands for the MHC class II antigenic presentation pathway, were recently shown to cleave and activate intracellular TLRs in endosomal compartments. Here, I give an overview on the individual roles of the most well studied proteases in both antigen and TLRs processing.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 29%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 12%
Chemistry 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 February 2019.
All research outputs
#8,261,756
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#10,111
of 31,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,495
of 288,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#107
of 503 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 288,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.