↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Evaluation of Heterologous Production Systems for Recombinant Pulmonary Surfactant Protein D

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Comparative Evaluation of Heterologous Production Systems for Recombinant Pulmonary Surfactant Protein D
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00623
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Salgado, Rainer Fischer, Stefan Schillberg, Richard M. Twyman, Stefan Rasche

Abstract

Commercial surfactant products derived from animal lungs are used for the treatment of respiratory diseases in premature neonates. These products contain lipids and the hydrophobic surfactant proteins B and C, which help to lower the surface tension in the lungs. Surfactant products are less effective when pulmonary diseases involve inflammatory complications because two hydrophilic surfactant proteins (A and D) are lost during the extraction process, yet surfactant protein D (SP-D) is a component of the innate immune system that helps to reduce lung inflammation. The performance of surfactant products could, therefore, be improved by supplementing them with an additional source of SP-D. Recombinant SP-D (rSP-D) is produced in mammalian cells and bacteria (Escherichia coli), and also experimentally in the yeast Pichia pastoris. Mammalian cells produce full-size SP-D, but the yields are low and the cost of production is high. In contrast, bacteria produce a truncated form of SP-D, which is active in vitro and in vivo, and higher yields can be achieved at a lower cost. We compare the efficiency of production of rSP-D in terms of the total yields achieved in each system and the amount of SP-D needed to meet the global demand for the treatment of pulmonary diseases, using respiratory distress syndrome as a case study.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 9%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 31%
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 31 December 2014.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#27,414
of 31,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#314,306
of 368,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#152
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,513 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 368,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.