↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms and clinical implications of tumor heterogeneity and convergence on recurrent phenotypes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Mechanisms and clinical implications of tumor heterogeneity and convergence on recurrent phenotypes
Published in
Journal of Molecular Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00109-017-1587-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasmine A. McQuerry, Jeffrey T. Chang, David D. L. Bowtell, Adam Cohen, Andrea H. Bild

Abstract

Tumor heterogeneity has been identified at various -omic levels. The tumor genome, transcriptome, proteome, and phenome can vary widely across cells in patient tumors and are influenced by tumor cell interactions with heterogeneous physical conditions and cellular components of the tumor microenvironment. Here, we explore the concept that while variation exists at multiple -omic levels, changes at each of these levels converge on the same pathways and lead to convergent phenotypes in tumors that can provide common drug targets. These phenotypes include cellular growth and proliferation, sustained oncogenic signaling, and immune avoidance, among others. Tumor heterogeneity complicates treatment of patient cancers as it leads to varied response to therapies. Identification of convergent cellular phenotypes arising in patient cancers and targeted therapies that reverse them has the potential to transform the way clinicians treat these cancers and to improve patient outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Chemical Engineering 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,233,951
of 23,322,966 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Medicine
#1,031
of 1,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,526
of 316,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Medicine
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,966 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 316,475 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 57% of its contemporaries.