↓ Skip to main content

IFNγ‐producing CD4+ T lymphocytes: the double‐edged swords in tuberculosis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Medicine, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
IFNγ‐producing CD4+ T lymphocytes: the double‐edged swords in tuberculosis
Published in
Clinical and Translational Medicine, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40169-017-0151-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pawan Kumar

Abstract

IFNγ-producing CD4(+) T cells (IFNγ(+)CD4(+) T cells) are the key orchestrators of protective immunity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb). Primarily, these cells act by enabling Mtb-infected macrophages to enforce phagosome-lysosome fusion, produce reactive nitrogen intermediates (RNIs), and activate autophagy pathways. However, TB is a heterogeneous disease and a host of clinical and experimental findings has also implicated IFNγ(+)CD4(+) T cells in TB pathogenesis. High frequency of IFNγ(+)CD4(+) T cells is the most invariable feature of the active disease. Active TB patients mount a heightened IFNγ(+)CD4(+) T cell response to mycobacterial antigens and demonstrate an IFNγ-inducible transcriptomic signature. IFNγ(+)CD4(+) T cells have also been shown to mediate TB-associated immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (TB-IRIS) observed in a subset of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-treated HIV- and Mtb-coinfected people. The pathological face of IFNγ(+)CD4(+) T cells during mycobacterial infection is further uncovered by studies in the animal model of TB-IRIS and in Mtb-infected PD-1(-/-) mice. This manuscript encompasses the evidence supporting the dual role of IFNγ(+)CD4(+) T cells during Mtb infection and sheds light on immune mechanisms involved in protection versus pathogenesis.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 27 36%
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 25 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#571
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,316
of 331,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 331,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.