↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter: Isolation and Identification of Interstitial Macrophages from the Lungs Using Different Digestion Enzymes and Staining Strategies
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.
Chapter title
Isolation and Identification of Interstitial Macrophages from the Lungs Using Different Digestion Enzymes and Staining Strategies
Book title
Macrophages
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7837-3_6
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7836-6, 978-1-4939-7837-3
Authors

Shaikh M. Atif, Sophie L. Gibbings, Claudia V. Jakubzick

Abstract

Interstitial macrophages (IMs) are present in multiple organs. Although there is limited knowledge of the unique functional role IM subtypes play, macrophages, in general, are known for their contribution in homeostatic tissue maintenance and inflammation such as clearing pathogens and debris and secreting inflammatory mediators and growth factors. IM subtypes have been identified in the heart, skin, and gut, and more recently we identified three distinct IMs in the lung. IMs express on their surface high levels of MerTK, CD64, and CD11b, with differences in CD11c, CD206, and MHC II expression, and referred to the three pulmonary IM subtypes as IM1 (CD11cloCD206+MHCIIlo), IM2 (CD11cloCD206+MHCIIhi), and IM3 (CD11chiCD206loMHCIIhi). In this chapter, we highlight how to extract IMs from the lung using three different digestion enzymes: elastase, collagenase D, and Liberase TM. Of these three commonly used enzymes, Liberase TM was the most effective at IM extraction, particularly IM3. Furthermore, alternative staining strategies to identify IMs were examined, which included CD64, MerTK, F4/80, and Tim4. Thus, future studies highlighting the functional role of IM subtypes will help further our understanding of how tissue homeostasis is maintained and inflammatory conditions are induced and resolved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,395,000
of 23,054,359 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#4,237
of 13,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,637
of 442,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#433
of 1,499 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,054,359 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,196 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 442,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,499 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.