↓ Skip to main content

Recombinant human thrombomodulin inhibits neutrophil extracellular trap formation in vitro

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Recombinant human thrombomodulin inhibits neutrophil extracellular trap formation in vitro
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40560-016-0177-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasuyo Shimomura, Mika Suga, Naohide Kuriyama, Tomoyuki Nakamura, Toshikazu Sakai, Yu Kato, Yoshitaka Hara, Chizuru Yamashita, Hiroshi Nagasaki, Masao Kaneki, Osamu Nishida

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of recombinant human-soluble thrombomodulin (rTM) on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced, platelet-dependent neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation (NETosis). Human peripheral blood neutrophils and platelets were co-incubated with or without LPS (0.2 μg/ml) in the presence and absence of rTM (2 μg/ml). NETosis was confirmed by immunostaining and confocal microscopy. In the absence of platelets, LPS did not induce NETosis in the neutrophils. NETosis, however, was induced by LPS when neutrophils were co-cultured with platelets (64 % of neutrophils). Notably, rTM was able to fully inhibit NETosis in neutrophils cultured with platelets and in the presence of LPS. rTM did not induce NETosis in this co-culture system (p < 0.01 versus LPS in the absence of rTM). These results show that rTM can suppress LPS-induced platelet-dependent NETosis in vitro.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 25%
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Other 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Unspecified 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 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 31 July 2016.
All research outputs
#3,854,303
of 8,161,363 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#121
of 188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,078
of 258,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#18
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,161,363 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 50th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 258,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.