↓ Skip to main content

Pathogenic Effector Th2 Cells in Allergic Eosinophilic Inflammatory Disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Pathogenic Effector Th2 Cells in Allergic Eosinophilic Inflammatory Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00165
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alyssa Mitson-Salazar, Calman Prussin

Abstract

There is an absolute requirement for Th2 cells in the pathogenesis of allergen-driven eosinophil-rich type 2 inflammation. Although Th2 cells are generally regarded as a homogeneous population, in the past decade there has been increasing evidence for a minority subpopulation of IL-5+ Th2 cells that have enhanced effector function. This IL-5+ Th2 subpopulation has been termed pathogenic effector Th2 (peTh2), as it exhibits greater effector function and disease association than conventional Th2 cells. peTh2 cells have a different expression profile, differentially express transcription factors, and preferentially use specific signaling pathways. As such, peTh2 cells are a potential target in the treatment of allergic eosinophilic inflammation. This review examines peTh2 cells, both in mouse models and human disease, with an emphasis on their role in the pathogenesis of allergic eosinophilic inflammation.

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 profiles of 2 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 33%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Master 4 11%
Unspecified 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 10 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Unspecified 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 5 14%
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 28 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,481,147
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,044
of 5,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,196
of 323,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#40
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 323,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.