| Title |
Wnt Signaling in Ewing Sarcoma, Osteosarcoma, and Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Osteoporosis Reports, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11914-017-0377-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew G. Pridgeon, Patrick J. Grohar, Matthew R. Steensma, Bart O. Williams |
| Abstract |
Wnt signaling plays a central role in development and homeostasis, and its dysregulation is a common event in many types of human cancer. Here we explore in detail the contributions of Wnt signaling to the initiation and maintenance of three types of saroma: Ewing sarcoma, osteosarcoma, and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors. This review provides an overview of the Wnt signaling pathway and explores in detail the current knowledge about its role in the initiation or maintenance of three tumor types: Ewing sarcoma, osteosarcoma, and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors. Recent work has assessed the role(s) of Wnt signaling within these cell types. This review provides an overview of the mechanistic insights that have been gained from a number of recent studies to set the foundation for potential therapeutic applications. Wnt signaling has emerged as a potentially critical pathway in maintaining the growth of these types of tumors. Given the fact that many new inhibitors of the pathway have recently or will soon enter Phase 1 clinical trials, it is likely that assessment of their activity in these tumor types will occur in human patients. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
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 04 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,556,449
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Current Osteoporosis Reports
#404
of 549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,458
of 315,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Osteoporosis Reports
#14
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 549 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 315,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.