↓ Skip to main content

Proteomics of Eosinophil Activation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Proteomics of Eosinophil Activation
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00159
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deane F. Mosher, Emily M. Wilkerson, Keren B. Turton, Alexander S. Hebert, Joshua J. Coon

Abstract

We recently identified and quantified >7,000 proteins in non-activated human peripheral blood eosinophils using liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and described phosphoproteomic changes that accompany acute activation of eosinophils by interleukin-5 (IL5) (1). These data comprise a treasure trove of information about eosinophils. We illustrate the power of label-free LC-MS/MS quantification by considering four examples: complexity of eosinophil STATs, contribution of immunoproteasome subunits to eosinophil proteasomes, complement of integrin subunits, and contribution of platelet proteins originating from platelet-eosinophil complexes to the overall proteome. We describe how isobaric labeling enables robust sample-to-sample comparisons and relate the 220 phosphosites that changed significantly upon treatment with IL5 to previous studies of eosinophil activation. Finally, we review previous attempts to leverage the power of mass spectrometry to discern differences between eosinophils of healthy subjects and those with eosinophil-associated conditions and point out features of label-free quantification and isobaric labeling that are important in planning future mass spectrometric studies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 29%
Researcher 3 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 14%
Lecturer 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Chemical Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 21%
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 30 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,844
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,995
of 5,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,007
of 321,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#45
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 321,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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.