↓ Skip to main content

Acquired resistance to anti-PD1 therapy: checkmate to checkpoint blockade?

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Acquired resistance to anti-PD1 therapy: checkmate to checkpoint blockade?
Published in
Genome Medicine, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13073-016-0365-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jake S. O’Donnell, Mark J. Smyth, Michele W. L. Teng

Abstract

Anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD1) immunotherapies are among the most effective anti-cancer immunotherapies available; however, a large number of patients present with or develop resistance to them. Unfortunately, very little is known regarding the mechanisms of resistance to such therapies. A recent study sought to identify mutations associated with resistance to anti-PD1 therapy. Results from this study demonstrated that mutations which affected the sensitivity of tumor cells to T-cell-derived interferons, and mutations limiting tumor-cell antigen presentation, could cause acquired resistance. These findings have significant implications for understanding the mechanisms by which anti-PD1 therapies exert their efficacy, comprehending why and how some patients acquire resistance over time, and ultimately guiding the development of combination therapies designed to overcome, or potentially prevent, the development of acquired immunotherapeutic resistance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 76 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Other 8 10%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 18 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,994,517
of 17,362,547 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#628
of 1,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,934
of 301,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#77
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,362,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 301,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.