↓ Skip to main content

Natural Killer Cell Immunotherapy: From Bench to Bedside

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Natural Killer Cell Immunotherapy: From Bench to Bedside
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00264
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Domogala, J. Alejandro Madrigal, Aurore Saudemont

Abstract

The potential of natural killer (NK) cells to target numerous malignancies in vitro has been well documented; however, only limited success has been seen in the clinic. Although NK cells prove non-toxic and safe regardless of the cell numbers injected, there is often little persistence and expansion observed in a patient, which is vital for mounting an effective cellular response. NK cells can be isolated directly from peripheral blood, umbilical cord blood, or bone marrow, expanded in vitro using cytokines or differentiated in vitro from hematopoietic stem cells. Drugs that support NK cell function such as lenalidomide and bortezomib have also been studied in the clinic, however, the optimum combination, which can vary among different malignancies, is yet to be identified. NK cell proliferation, persistence, and function can further be improved by various activation techniques such as priming and cytokine addition though whether stimulation pre- or post-injection is more favorable is another obstacle to be tackled. Here, we review the various methods of obtaining and activating NK cells for use in the clinic while considering the ideal product and drug complement for the most successful cellular therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 100 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 15 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 18 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,784,344
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#12,923
of 31,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,413
of 281,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#77
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,520 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 58% 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 281,105 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.