↓ Skip to main content

Peptide immunotherapy for childhood allergy ‐ addressing translational challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Peptide immunotherapy for childhood allergy ‐ addressing translational challenges
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/2045-7022-1-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen J Mackenzie, Stephen M Anderton, Jürgen Schwarze

Abstract

Allergic sensitisation usually begins early in life. The number of allergens a patient is sensitised to can increase over time and the development of additional allergic conditions is increasingly recognised. Targeting allergic disease in childhood is thus likely to be the most efficacious means of reducing the overall burden of allergic disease. Specific immunotherapy involves administering protein allergen to tolerise allergen reactive CD4+ T cells, thought key in driving allergic responses. Yet specific immunotherapy risks allergic reactions including anaphylaxis as a consequence of preformed allergen-specific IgE antibodies binding to the protein, subsequent cross-linking and mast cell degranulation. CD4+ T cells direct their responses to short "immunodominant" peptides within the allergen. Such peptides can be given therapeutically to induce T cell tolerance without facilitating IgE cross-linking. Peptide immunotherapy (PIT) offers attractive treatment potential for allergic disease. However, PIT has not yet been shown to be effective in children. This review discusses the immunological mechanisms implicated in PIT and briefly covers outcomes from adult PIT trials. This provides a context for discussion of the challenges for the application of PIT, both generally and more specifically in relation to children.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Denmark 1 4%
Argentina 1 4%
Unknown 20 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 26%
Other 4 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2012.
All research outputs
#9,366,778
of 17,039,068 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#347
of 508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,889
of 120,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#19
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,039,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 120,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.