↓ Skip to main content

γδ T Lymphocytes as a First Line of Immune Defense: Old and New Ways of Antigen Recognition and Implications for Cancer Immunotherapy

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
γδ T Lymphocytes as a First Line of Immune Defense: Old and New Ways of Antigen Recognition and Implications for Cancer Immunotherapy
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00575
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandro Poggi, Maria Raffaella Zocchi

Abstract

Among γδT cells, the Vδ1 subset, resident in epithelial tissues, is implied in the defense against viruses, fungi, and certain hematological malignancies, while the circulating Vδ2 subpopulation mainly respond to mycobacteria and solid tumors. Both subsets can be activated by stress-induced molecules (MIC-A, MIC-B, ULBPs) to produce pro-inflammatory cytokines and lytic enzymes and destroy bacteria or damaged cells. γδT lymphocytes can also recognize lipids, as those associated to M. tuberculosis, presented by the CD1 molecule, or phosphoantigens (P-Ag), either autologous, which accumulates in virus-infected cells, or microbial produced by prokaryotes and parasites. In cancer cells, P-Ag accumulate due to alterations in the mevalonate pathway; recently, butyrophilin 3A1 has been shown to be the presenting molecule for P-Ag. Of interest, aminobisphosphonates indirectly activate Vδ2 T cells inducing the accumulation of P-Ag. Based on these data, γδT lymphocytes are attractive effectors for cancer immunotherapy. However, the results obtained in clinical trials so far have been disappointing: this review will focus on the possible reasons of this failure as well as on suggestions for implementation of the therapeutic strategies.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Russia 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 57 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 30%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 14 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 November 2014.
All research outputs
#16,599,928
of 26,184,649 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#17,299
of 33,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,252
of 273,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#97
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,184,649 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 273,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.