↓ Skip to main content

Multicolor Flow Cytometry for the Diagnosis of Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Immunology, June 2017
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
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Multicolor Flow Cytometry for the Diagnosis of Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases
Published in
Journal of Clinical Immunology, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10875-017-0405-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takehiro Takashima, Miko Okamura, Tzu-wen Yeh, Tsubasa Okano, Motoi Yamashita, Keisuke Tanaka, Akihiro Hoshino, Noriko Mitsuiki, Masatoshi Takagi, Eiichi Ishii, Kohsuke Imai, Hirokazu Kanegane, Tomohiro Morio

Abstract

Primary immunodeficiency diseases (PIDDs) are rare inherited diseases that impair the human immune system. We established a multicolor flow cytometric assay to comprehensively evaluate the immune status and immunological characteristics of patients with PIDDs. Fifty-nine normal controls and 75 patients with PIDDs, including X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (X-SCID), X-linked agammaglobulinemia (XLA), X-linked hyper IgM syndrome (X-HIGM), ataxia telangiectasia (AT), Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (WAS), hyper IgE syndrome (HIES), and chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis disease (CMCD), were enrolled in this study. Immunophenotyes were evaluated by multicolor flow cytometry using seven different panels that allowed the detection of major leukocyte populations in peripheral blood. Multicolor flow cytometry revealed distinct leukocyte populations and immunological features of patients with X-SCID, XLA, X-HIGM, AT, WAS, HIES, and CMCD. Immunophenotyping by multicolor flow cytometry is useful to evaluate immune status and contributes to the diagnosis and management of patients with PIDDs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 10 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 11 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Other 2 6%

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 10 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,849,674
of 11,449,413 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Immunology
#454
of 841 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,233
of 267,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Immunology
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,449,413 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 841 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 267,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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.