↓ Skip to main content

Bacterial Toxins as Pathogen Weapons Against Phagocytes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 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
Bacterial Toxins as Pathogen Weapons Against Phagocytes
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00042
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana do Vale, Didier Cabanes, Sandra Sousa

Abstract

Bacterial toxins are virulence factors that manipulate host cell functions and take over the control of vital processes of living organisms to favor microbial infection. Some toxins directly target innate immune cells, thereby annihilating a major branch of the host immune response. In this review we will focus on bacterial toxins that act from the extracellular milieu and hinder the function of macrophages and neutrophils. In particular, we will concentrate on toxins from Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria that manipulate cell signaling or induce cell death by either imposing direct damage to the host cells cytoplasmic membrane or enzymatically modifying key eukaryotic targets. Outcomes regarding pathogen dissemination, host damage and disease progression will be discussed.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 209 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 40 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 16%
Researcher 26 12%
Student > Master 26 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 4%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 49 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 50 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 31 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 2%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 53 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 06 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,979,938
of 24,024,220 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#2,582
of 27,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,348
of 405,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#63
of 490 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,024,220 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 27,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 405,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 490 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.