↓ Skip to main content

Diverse Impacts of HIV Latency-Reversing Agents on CD8+ T-Cell Function: Implications for HIV Cure

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, June 2018
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
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Diverse Impacts of HIV Latency-Reversing Agents on CD8+ T-Cell Function: Implications for HIV Cure
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01452
Pubmed ID
Authors

Genevieve Tyndale Clutton, R. Brad Jones

Abstract

Antiretroviral therapy regimens durably suppress HIV replication, but do not cure infection. This is partially attributable to the persistence of long-lived pools of resting CD4+ T-cells harboring latent replication-competent virus. Substantial clinical and pre-clinical research is currently being directed at purging this viral reservoir by combining pharmacological latency reversal with immune effectors, such as HIV-specific CD8+ T-cells, capable of eliminating reactivated targets-the so-called "shock-and-kill" approach. However, several studies indicate that the latency-reversing agents (LRAs) may affect CD8+ T-cell function. The current review aims to frame recent advances, and ongoing challenges, in implementing "shock-and-kill" strategies from the perspective of effectively harnessing CD8+ T-cells. We review and contextualize findings indicating that LRAs often have unintended impacts on CD8+ T-cell function, both detrimental and beneficial. We identify and attempt to bridge the gap between viral reactivation, as measured by the detection of RNA or protein, and bona fide presentation of viral antigens to CD8+ T-cells. Finally, we highlight factors on the effector (CD8+) and target (CD4+) cell sides that contribute to whether or not infected-cell recognition results in killing/elimination. These perspectives may contribute to an integrated view of "shock-and-kill," with implications for therapeutic development.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 13%
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 20 31%
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 12 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,674,461
of 25,611,630 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#15,318
of 32,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,406
of 342,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#416
of 728 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,611,630 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,048 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 51% 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 342,902 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 728 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.