↓ Skip to main content

V-J combinations of T-cell receptor predict responses to erythropoietin in end-stage renal disease patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Science, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
V-J combinations of T-cell receptor predict responses to erythropoietin in end-stage renal disease patients
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Science, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12929-017-0349-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henry Sung-Ching Wong, Che-Mai Chang, Chih-Chin Kao, Yu-Wen Hsu, Xiao Liu, Wen-Chang Chang, Mai-Szu Wu, Wei-Chiao Chang

Abstract

Anemia is common among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients who undergone hemodialysis. The total reduction of red blood cell (RBC) count is associated with poor prognosis in these patients. Although erythropoietin (EPO) has been used as an effective treatment for ESRD patients with anemia, a large number of patients still present poor responses to EPO treatment. We measured T-cell receptor sequencing profiles, including length of complementarity-deteremining region 3 (CDR3), intra- and inter-group (EPO resistant vs. responsive) clonotype diversity, V(D)J usage profiles and V-J combinations from ESRD patients and to investigate the correlation between these features and EPO treatment efficacy. Our results revealed statistical significance in the top 3 ~ 15 most abundant joint distributions of Vβ/Jβ among the two groups, suggesting the importance of V or J gene utilization in the EPO response of ESRD patients. In summary, we provided evidence addressing the potential correlation between the immune repertoire and EPO response in ESRD patients. TMU-JIRB 201309026. Registered 16 October 2013.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Student > Master 1 5%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 48%
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 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Science
#871
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,883
of 324,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Science
#18
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 324,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.