↓ Skip to main content

Kinetics of human myeloid-derived suppressor cells after blood draw

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Kinetics of human myeloid-derived suppressor cells after blood draw
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12967-015-0755-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Grützner, Renate Stirner, Lukas Arenz, Anastasia P. Athanasoulia, Kathrin Schrödl, Carola Berking, Johannes R. Bogner, Rika Draenert

Abstract

Human myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) have been described as a group of immature myeloid cells which exert immunosuppressive action by inhibiting function of T lymphocytes. While there is a huge scientific interest to study these cells in multiple human diseases, the methodological approach varies substantially between published studies. This is problematic as human MDSC seem to be a sensible cell type concerning not only cryopreservation but also time point after blood draw. To date data on delayed blood processing influencing cell numbers and phenotype is missing. We therefore evaluated the kinetics of granulocytic MDSC (gMDSC) and monocytic MDSC (mMDSC) frequencies after blood draw in order to determine the best time point for analysis of this recently defined cell type. In this study, we isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) of patients with HIV infection or solid tumors directly after blood draw. We then analyzed the frequencies of gMDSC and mMDSC 2, 4 and 6 h after blood draw and after an overnight rest by FACS analysis using the standard phenotypic markers. In addition, part of the cells was frozen directly after PBMC preparation and was measured after thawing. gMDSC levels showed no significant difference using fresh PBMC over time with a limitation for the overnight sample. However they were massively diminished after freezing (p = 0.0001 for all subjects). In contrast, frequencies of fresh mMDSC varied over time with no difference between time point 2 and 4 h but a significantly reduction after 6 h and overnight rest (p = 0.0005 and p = 0.005 respectively). Freezing of PBMC decreased the yield of mMDSC reaching statistical significance (p = 0.04). For both MDSC subgroups, FACS analysis became more difficult over time due to less sharp divisions between populations. According to our data human MDSC need to be studied on fresh PBMC. gMDSC can be studied with delay, mMDSC however should be studied no later than 4 h after blood draw. These results are crucial as an increasing number of clinical trials aim at analyzing MDSC nowadays and the logistics of blood processing implies delayed sample processing in some cases.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Other 6 13%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 8 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 16%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 20%
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 06 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,353,264
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,236
of 3,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,684
of 393,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#47
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 393,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.