↓ Skip to main content

How Do CD4+ T Cells Detect and Eliminate Tumor Cells That Either Lack or Express MHC Class II Molecules?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
166 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
338 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
How Do CD4+ T Cells Detect and Eliminate Tumor Cells That Either Lack or Express MHC Class II Molecules?
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00174
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ole Audun Werner Haabeth, Anders Aune Tveita, Marte Fauskanger, Fredrik Schjesvold, Kristina Berg Lorvik, Peter O. Hofgaard, Hilde Omholt, Ludvig A. Munthe, Zlatko Dembic, Alexandre Corthay, Bjarne Bogen

Abstract

CD4(+) T cells contribute to tumor eradication, even in the absence of CD8(+) T cells. Cytotoxic CD4(+) T cells can directly kill MHC class II positive tumor cells. More surprisingly, CD4(+) T cells can indirectly eliminate tumor cells that lack MHC class II expression. Here, we review the mechanisms of direct and indirect CD4(+) T cell-mediated elimination of tumor cells. An emphasis is put on T cell receptor (TCR) transgenic models, where anti-tumor responses of naïve CD4(+) T cells of defined specificity can be tracked. Some generalizations can tentatively be made. For both MHCII(POS) and MHCII(NEG) tumors, presentation of tumor-specific antigen by host antigen-presenting cells (APCs) appears to be required for CD4(+) T cell priming. This has been extensively studied in a myeloma model (MOPC315), where host APCs in tumor-draining lymph nodes are primed with secreted tumor antigen. Upon antigen recognition, naïve CD4(+) T cells differentiate into Th1 cells and migrate to the tumor. At the tumor site, the mechanisms for elimination of MHCII(POS) and MHCII(NEG) tumor cells differ. In a TCR-transgenic B16 melanoma model, MHCII(POS) melanoma cells are directly killed by cytotoxic CD4(+) T cells in a perforin/granzyme B-dependent manner. By contrast, MHCII(NEG) myeloma cells are killed by IFN-γ stimulated M1-like macrophages. In summary, while the priming phase of CD4(+) T cells appears similar for MHCII(POS) and MHCII(NEG) tumors, the killing mechanisms are different. Unresolved issues and directions for future research are addressed.

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 3 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 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 333 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 78 23%
Researcher 61 18%
Student > Master 45 13%
Student > Bachelor 38 11%
Other 21 6%
Other 46 14%
Unknown 49 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 77 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 55 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 13%
Engineering 8 2%
Other 25 7%
Unknown 58 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 January 2021.
All research outputs
#7,402,314
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#8,421
of 32,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,495
of 240,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#26
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 240,927 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.