↓ Skip to main content

Hypothetical protein Cpn0423 triggers NOD2 activation and contributes to Chlamydia pneumoniae-mediated inflammation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Hypothetical protein Cpn0423 triggers NOD2 activation and contributes to Chlamydia pneumoniae-mediated inflammation
Published in
BMC Microbiology, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12866-017-1062-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong-liang Chen, Guo-zhi Dai, An-wen Zhou, Ran-hui Li, Hong-xia Yuan, Jing Xiang, Xiao-xing You, Ou Ran, Yi-mou Wu

Abstract

Chlamydia pneumoniae (C. pneumoniae) is pathogenic to humans, by causing pulmonary inflammation or bronchitis in both adolescents and young adults. However, the molecular signals linking C. pneumoniae components to inflammation remain elusive. This study was to investigate the effect of Chlamydia-specific Cpn0423 of C. pneumoniae on C. pneumoniae-mediated inflammation. Cpn0423 was detected outside of C. pneumoniae inclusions, which induced production of several cytokines including macrophage inflammatory protein-2 (MIP-2) and interleukins (ILs). Production of the Cpn0423-induced cytokines was markedly reduced in cells pretreated with NOD2-siRNA, but not with negative control oligonucleotides. Mice treated with Cpn0423 through intranasal administration exhibited pulmonary inflammation as evidenced by infiltration of inflammatory cells, increased inflammatory scores in the lung histology, recruitment of neutrophils and increased cytokines levels in the BALF. Cpn0423 could be sensed by NOD2, which was identified as an essential element in a pathway contributing to the development of C. pneumoniae -mediated inflammation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 50%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,434,884
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#2,700
of 3,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,460
of 312,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#44
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,206 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 312,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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.