↓ Skip to main content

In vivo monitoring of lung inflammation in CFTR-deficient mice

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
In vivo monitoring of lung inflammation in CFTR-deficient mice
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12967-016-0976-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabio Stellari, Gabriella Bergamini, Francesca Ruscitti, Angela Sandri, Francesca Ravanetti, Gaetano Donofrio, Federico Boschi, Gino Villetti, Claudio Sorio, Barouk M. Assael, Paola Melotti, Maria M. Lleo

Abstract

Experimentally, lung inflammation in laboratory animals is usually detected by the presence of inflammatory markers, such as immune cells and cytokines, in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) of sacrificed animals. This method, although extensively used, is time, money and animal life consuming, especially when applied to genetically modified animals. Thus a new and more convenient approach, based on in vivo imaging analysis, has been set up to evaluate the inflammatory response in the lung of CFTR-deficient (CF) mice, a murine model of cystic fibrosis. Wild type (WT) and CF mice were stimulated with P. aeruginosa LPS, TNF-alpha and culture supernatant derived from P. aeruginosa (strain VR1). Lung inflammation was detected by measuring bioluminescence in vivo in mice transiently transgenized with a luciferase reporter gene under the control of a bovine IL-8 gene promoter. Differences in bioluminescence (BLI) signal were revealed by comparing the two types of mice after intratracheal challenge with pro-inflammatory stimuli. BLI increased at 4 h after stimulation with TNF-alpha and at 24 h after administration of LPS and VR1 supernatant in CF mice with respect to untreated animals. The BLI signal was significantly more intense and lasted for longer times in CF animals when compared to WT mice. Analysis of BALF markers: leukocytes, cytokines and histology revealed no significant differences between CF and WT mice. In vivo gene delivery technology and non-invasive bioluminescent imaging has been successfully adapted to CFTR-deficient mice. Activation of bIL-8 transgene promoter can be monitored by non-invasive BLI imaging in the lung of the same animal and compared longitudinally in both CF or WT mice, after challenge with pro-inflammatory stimuli. The combination of these technologies and the use of CF mice offer the unique opportunity of evaluating the impact of therapies aimed to control inflammation in a CF background.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 27%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 9 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 10 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,639,962
of 8,588,184 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#524
of 1,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,616
of 262,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#20
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,588,184 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 56th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 262,102 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.