↓ Skip to main content

GM-CSF Monocyte-Derived Cells and Langerhans Cells As Part of the Dendritic Cell Family

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
GM-CSF Monocyte-Derived Cells and Langerhans Cells As Part of the Dendritic Cell Family
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01388
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manfred B. Lutz, Herbert Strobl, Gerold Schuler, Nikolaus Romani

Abstract

Dendritic cells (DCs) and macrophages (Mph) share many characteristics as components of the innate immune system. The criteria to classify the multitude of subsets within the mononuclear phagocyte system are currently phenotype, ontogeny, transcription patterns, epigenetic adaptations, and function. More recently, ontogenetic, transcriptional, and proteomic research approaches uncovered major developmental differences between Flt3L-dependent conventional DCs as compared with Mphs and monocyte-derived DCs (MoDCs), the latter mainly generated in vitro from murine bone marrow-derived DCs (BM-DCs) or human CD14(+) peripheral blood monocytes. Conversely, in vitro GM-CSF-dependent monocyte-derived Mphs largely resemble MoDCs whereas tissue-resident Mphs show a common embryonic origin from yolk sac and fetal liver with Langerhans cells (LCs). The novel ontogenetic findings opened discussions on the terminology of DCs versus Mphs. Here, we bring forward arguments to facilitate definitions of BM-DCs, MoDCs, and LCs. We propose a group model of terminology for all DC subsets that attempts to encompass both ontogeny and function.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 23%
Researcher 24 19%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 40 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 25 20%
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 09 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,053,382
of 26,414,132 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#21,204
of 33,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,507
of 342,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#422
of 565 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,414,132 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 342,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 565 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.