↓ Skip to main content

Identification of new MUC1 epitopes using HLA-transgenic animals: implication for immunomonitoring

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

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
Identification of new MUC1 epitopes using HLA-transgenic animals: implication for immunomonitoring
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-017-1254-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanja Scheikl-Gatard, Caroline Tosch, François Lemonnier, Ronald Rooke

Abstract

The success of immunotherapeutics in oncology and the search for further improvements has prompted revisiting the use of cancer vaccines. In this context, knowledge of the immunogenic epitopes and the monitoring of the immune response cancer vaccines generate are essential. MUC1 has been considered one of the most important tumor associated antigen for decades. To identify HLA-restricted MUC1 peptides we used eight human MHC class I transgenic mouse lines, together covering more than 80% of the human population. MUC1 peptides were identified by vaccinating each line with full length MUC1 coding sequences and using an IFNγ ELIspot restimulation assay. Relevant peptides were tested in a flow cytometry-based tetramer assay and for their capacity to serve as target in an in vivo killing assay. Four previously identified MUC1 peptides were confirmed and five are described here for the first time. These nine peptide-MHC combinations were further characterized. Six gave above-background tetramer staining of splenocytes from immunized animals and three peptides were induced more than 5% specific in vivo killing. These data describe for the first time five new HLA class I-restricted peptides and revisit some that were previously described. They also emphasize the importance of using in vivo/ex vivo models to screen for immunogenic peptides and define the functions for individual peptide-HLA combinations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 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 > Bachelor 5 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Student > Master 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 4 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 18%
Chemistry 2 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,124,847
of 11,435,137 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,373
of 2,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,529
of 259,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#49
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,435,137 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 259,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.