↓ Skip to main content

Quantifying CD4 receptor protein in two human CD4+ lymphocyte preparations for quantitative flow cytometry

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Proteomics, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
4 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Quantifying CD4 receptor protein in two human CD4+ lymphocyte preparations for quantitative flow cytometry
Published in
Clinical Proteomics, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1559-0275-11-43
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meiyao Wang, Martin Misakian, Hua-Jun He, Peter Bajcsy, Fatima Abbasi, Jeffrey M Davis, Kenneth D Cole, Illarion V Turko, Lili Wang

Abstract

In our previous study that characterized different human CD4+ lymphocyte preparations, it was found that both commercially available cryopreserved peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and a commercially available lyophilized PBMC (Cyto-Trol™) preparation fulfilled a set of criteria for serving as biological calibrators for quantitative flow cytometry. However, the biomarker CD4 protein expression level measured for T helper cells from Cyto-Trol was about 16% lower than those for cryopreserved PBMC and fresh whole blood using flow cytometry and mass cytometry. A primary reason was hypothesized to be due to steric interference in anti- CD4 antibody binding to the smaller sized lyophilized control cells.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Korea, Republic of 1 3%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 13%
Engineering 2 5%
Mathematics 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 11 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#7,168,149
of 23,394,907 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Proteomics
#85
of 289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,118
of 364,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Proteomics
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,394,907 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 364,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.