↓ Skip to main content

Association of REL polymorphisms and outcome of patients with septic shock

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Association of REL polymorphisms and outcome of patients with septic shock
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0130-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Toubiana, Emilie Courtine, Frederic Tores, Pierre Asfar, Cédric Daubin, Christophe Rousseau, Fatah Ouaaz, Nathalie Marin, Alain Cariou, Jean-Daniel Chiche, Jean-Paul Mira

Abstract

cRel, a subunit of NF-κB, is implicated in the inflammatory response observed in autoimmune disease. Hence, knocked-out mice for cRel had a significantly higher mortality, providing new and important functions of cRel in the physiopathology of septic shock. Whether genetic variants in the human REL gene are associated with severity of septic shock is unknown. We genotyped a population of 1040 ICU patients with septic shock and 855 ICU controls for two known polymorphisms of REL; REL rs842647 and REL rs13031237. Outcome of patients according to the presence of REL variant alleles was compared. The distribution of REL variant alleles was not significantly different between patients and controls. Among the septic shock group, REL rs13031237*T minor allele was not associated with worse outcome. In contrast, REL rs842647*G minor allele was significantly associated with more multi-organ failure and early death [OR 1.4; 95 % CI (1.02-1.8)]. In a large ICU population, we report a significant clinical association between a variation in the human REL gene and severity and mortality of septic shock, suggesting for the first time a new insight into the role of cRel in response to infection in humans.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 30%
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 09 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,318,358
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#955
of 1,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,103
of 300,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#27
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 300,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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.