↓ Skip to main content

Glioma Surgical Aspirate: A Viable Source of Tumor Tissue for Experimental Research

Overview of attention for article published in Cancers, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Glioma Surgical Aspirate: A Viable Source of Tumor Tissue for Experimental Research
Published in
Cancers, April 2013
DOI 10.3390/cancers5020357
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bryan W. Day, Brett W. Stringer, John Wilson, Rosalind L. Jeffree, Paul R. Jamieson, Kathleen S. Ensbey, Zara C. Bruce, Po Inglis, Suzanne Allan, Craig Winter, Gert Tollesson, Scott Campbell, Peter Lucas, Wendy Findlay, David Kadrian, David Johnson, Thomas Robertson, Terrance G. Johns, Perry F. Bartlett, Geoffrey W. Osborne, Andrew W. Boyd

Abstract

Brain cancer research has been hampered by a paucity of viable clinical tissue of sufficient quality and quantity for experimental research. This has driven researchers to rely heavily on long term cultured cells which no longer represent the cancers from which they were derived. Resection of brain tumors, particularly at the interface between normal and tumorigenic tissue, can be carried out using an ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) that deposits liquid (blood and irrigation fluid) and resected tissue into a sterile bottle for disposal. To determine the utility of CUSA-derived glioma tissue for experimental research, we collected 48 CUSA specimen bottles from glioma patients and analyzed both the solid tissue fragments and dissociated tumor cells suspended in the liquid waste fraction. We investigated if these fractions would be useful for analyzing tumor heterogeneity, using IHC and multi-parameter flow cytometry; we also assessed culture generation and orthotopic xenograft potential. Both cell sources proved to be an abundant, highly viable source of live tumor cells for cytometric analysis, animal studies and in-vitro studies. Our findings demonstrate that CUSA tissue represents an abundant viable source to conduct experimental research and to carry out diagnostic analyses by flow cytometry or other molecular diagnostic procedures.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 15%
Chemistry 4 8%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 10 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 October 2023.
All research outputs
#6,532,422
of 23,862,416 outputs
Outputs from Cancers
#2,723
of 13,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,154
of 202,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancers
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,862,416 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,993 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 202,350 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.