↓ Skip to main content

In-vitro influence of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and Ciclosporin A (CsA) on cytokine induced killer (CIK) cell immunotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, September 2016
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
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
17 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-vitro influence of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and Ciclosporin A (CsA) on cytokine induced killer (CIK) cell immunotherapy
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12967-016-1024-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melanie Bremm, Sabine Huenecke, Olga Zimmermann, Verena Pfirrmann, Andrea Quaiser, Halvard Bonig, Jan Soerensen, Thomas Klingebiel, Eva Rettinger, Peter Bader, Claudia Cappel

Abstract

Cytokine-induced-killer (CIK) cells are a promising immunotherapeutic approach for impending relapse following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, there is a high risk for treatment failure associated with severe graft versus host disease (GvHD) necessitating pharmaceutical intervention post-transplant. Whether immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or Ciclosporin A (CsA) influences the cytotoxic effect of CIK cell immunotherapy is still an open issue. CIK cells were generated from PBMC as previously described followed by co-incubation with mycophenolic acid (MPA) or CsA. Proliferation, cytotoxicity and receptor expression were investigated following short- (24 h), intermediate- (3 days) and long-term (7 days) MPA incubation with the intention to simulate the in vivo situation when CIK cells were given to a patient with relevant MPA/CsA plasma levels. Short-term MPA treatment led to unchanged proliferation capacity and barely had any effect on viability and cytotoxic capability in vitro. The composition of CIK cells with respect to T-, NK-like T- and NK cells remained stable. Intermediate MPA treatment lacked effects on NKG2D, FasL and TRAIL receptor expression, while an influence on proliferation and viability was detectable. Furthermore, long-term treatment significantly impaired proliferation, restricted viability and drastically reduced migration-relevant receptors accompanied by an alteration in the CD4/CD8 ratio. CD3(+)CD56(+) cells upregulated receptors relevant for CIK cell killing and migration, whereas T cells showed the most interference through significant reductions in receptor expression. Interestingly, CsA treatment had no significant influence on CIK cell viability and the cytotoxic potential against K562. Our data indicate that if immunosuppressant therapy is indispensable, efficacy of CIK cells is maintained at least short-term, although more frequent dosing might be necessary.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Other 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 29%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 5 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,861,191
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,978
of 4,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,825
of 322,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#38
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 322,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 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.