↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Mechanism of Action of Different ω-6/ω-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Ratio on the Growth of Endometrial Carcinoma Mice

Overview of attention for article published in Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Effect of Mechanism of Action of Different ω-6/ω-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Ratio on the Growth of Endometrial Carcinoma Mice
Published in
Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12013-014-0389-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoyuan Lu, Xuan Ding, Li Jing

Abstract

To explore the effect and mechanism of action of different ω-6/ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) ratio on the expression of AKT and mTOR in mice bearing endometrial carcinoma. Once the human endometrial carcinoma xenograft models were successfully established, 40 BALB/C mice were randomized into five groups: group A (ω-6 PUFAs), group B (10:1 ω-6/ω-3 PUFAs), group C (control group), group D (1:1 ω-6/ω-3 PUFAs), and group E (ω-3 PUFAs). Six weeks post-treatment, mice were sacrificed and the xenograft tissues were harvested for immunohistochemical SP analysis of AKT and mTOR expression. AKT and mTOR mRNA expression was determined by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Group A and group B had the highest positive expression of AKT and mTOR, with increased mRNA expression. Group D and group E had the lowest positive expression of AKT and mTOR, with decreased mRNA expression. There was a positive correlation between the expression of AKT and that of mTOR (r = 0.92). Thus, ω-6/ω-3 PUFAs in different proportions are associated with the mRNA expression of AKT and mTOR in the tissues of mouse xenograft model of human endometrial cancer.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 14%
Professor 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 14%
Unknown 5 71%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,262,852
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics
#356
of 910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,633
of 352,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics
#15
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 910 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 352,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.