↓ Skip to main content

NOD/scid IL-2Rgnull mice: a preclinical model system to evaluate human dendritic cell-based vaccine strategies in vivo

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
NOD/scid IL-2Rgnull mice: a preclinical model system to evaluate human dendritic cell-based vaccine strategies in vivo
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1479-5876-10-30
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefani Spranger, Bernhard Frankenberger, Dolores J Schendel

Abstract

To date very few systems have been described for preclinical investigations of human cellular therapeutics in vivo. However, the ability to carry out comparisons of new cellular vaccines in vivo would be of substantial interest for design of clinical studies. Here we describe a humanized mouse model to assess the efficacy of various human dendritic cell (DC) preparations. Two reconstitution regimes of NOD/scid IL2Rg(null) (NSG) mice with adult human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were evaluated for engraftment using 4-week and 9-week schedules. This led to selection of a simple and rapid protocol for engraftment and vaccine evaluation that encompassed 4 weeks.

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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 108 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 8 7%
Student > Master 8 7%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 36%
Immunology and Microbiology 23 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 14 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,155,245
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#669
of 3,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,858
of 155,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#6
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 155,715 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.