↓ Skip to main content

Waltonitone induces apoptosis through mir-663-induced Bcl-2 downregulation in non-small cell lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Tumor Biology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Waltonitone induces apoptosis through mir-663-induced Bcl-2 downregulation in non-small cell lung cancer
Published in
Tumor Biology, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13277-014-2704-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yi Zhang, Xiao Zhou, Xiaoman Xu, Meng Zhang, Xin Wang, Xue Bai, Hui Li, Liang Kan, Yong Zhou, Huiyan Niu, Ping He

Abstract

Our previous study reported that waltonitone treatment inhibited proliferation and induced apoptosis of lung cancer cells. However, the mechanism of waltonitone-induced toxicity remains unclear. In the present study, we treated H460 and H3255 lung cancer cells using different concentration of waltonitone (0, 10, 20, 30 μmol/L). We observed that waltonitone inhibited cell viability and induced apoptosis in a concentration dependent manner, with upregulation of caspase-3 cleavage. We also observed upregulation of miR-663, a potential tumor suppressor, after waltonitone treatment. Suppression of miR-663 function using miR-663 inhibitor partly alleviated cell toxicity induced by waltonitone. In addition, both waltonitone treatment and transfection of miR-663 mimic upregulated Bcl-2 mRNA and protein expression. Bcl-2 transfection alleviated waltonitone-induced toxicity. Furthermore, transfection of miR-663 inhibitor upregulated Bcl-2 levels in both cell lines. In summary, the present study demonstrated that waltonitone induced apoptosis of lung cancer cells through, at least partly, miR-663-induced Bcl-2 downregulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 31%
Researcher 4 31%
Student > Master 2 15%
Professor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Energy 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,381,794
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,370
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,635
of 255,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#55
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 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 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 255,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.