| Title |
The comparative immunology of wild and laboratory mice, Mus musculus domesticus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Communications, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ncomms14811 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen Abolins, Elizabeth C. King, Luke Lazarou, Laura Weldon, Louise Hughes, Paul Drescher, John G. Raynes, Julius C. R. Hafalla, Mark E. Viney, Eleanor M. Riley |
| Abstract |
The laboratory mouse is the workhorse of immunology, used as a model of mammalian immune function, but how well immune responses of laboratory mice reflect those of free-living animals is unknown. Here we comprehensively characterize serological, cellular and functional immune parameters of wild mice and compare them with laboratory mice, finding that wild mouse cellular immune systems are, comparatively, in a highly activated (primed) state. Associations between immune parameters and infection suggest that high level pathogen exposure drives this activation. Moreover, wild mice have a population of highly activated myeloid cells not present in laboratory mice. By contrast, in vitro cytokine responses to pathogen-associated ligands are generally lower in cells from wild mice, probably reflecting the importance of maintaining immune homeostasis in the face of intense antigenic challenge in the wild. These data provide a comprehensive basis for validating (or not) laboratory mice as a useful and relevant immunological model system. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 197 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 66 | 34% |
| United Kingdom | 20 | 10% |
| Australia | 12 | 6% |
| Canada | 8 | 4% |
| Germany | 5 | 3% |
| Ireland | 4 | 2% |
| Belgium | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Singapore | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Unknown | 64 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 94 | 48% |
| Scientists | 90 | 46% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 332 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 328 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 72 | 22% |
| Researcher | 52 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 6% |
| Other | 49 | 15% |
| Unknown | 75 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 74 | 22% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 60 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 41 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 40 | 12% |
| Unknown | 87 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 216. 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 03 July 2020.
All research outputs
#181,819
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#2,579
of 58,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,792
of 326,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#61
of 1,025 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 58,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 326,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,025 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.