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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Characterization of a Dual CDC7/CDK9 Inhibitor in Multiple Myeloma Cellular Models
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancers, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3390/cancers5030901 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alessandro Natoni, Mark R. E. Coyne, Alan Jacobsen, Michael D. Rainey, Gemma O’Brien, Sandra Healy, Alessia Montagnoli, Jürgen Moll, Michael O’Dwyer, Corrado Santocanale |
| Abstract |
Two key features of myeloma cells are the deregulation of the cell cycle and the dependency on the expression of the BCL2 family of anti-apoptotic proteins. The cell division cycle 7 (CDC7) is an essential S-phase kinase and emerging CDC7 inhibitors are effective in a variety of preclinical cancer models. These compounds also inhibit CDK9 which is relevant for MCL-1 expression. The activity and mechanism of action of the dual CDC7/CDK9 inhibitor PHA-767491 was assessed in a panel of multiple myeloma cell lines, in primary samples from patients, in the presence of stromal cells and in combination with drugs used in current chemotherapeutic regimens. We report that in all conditions myeloma cells undergo cell death upon PHA-767491 treatment and we report an overall additive effect with melphalan, bortezomib and doxorubicin, thus supporting further assessment of targeting CDC7 and CDK9 in multiple myeloma. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 23% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 12% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 November 2023.
All research outputs
#4,472,508
of 25,002,811 outputs
Outputs from Cancers
#1,847
of 15,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,984
of 204,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancers
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,002,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 204,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.