| Title |
Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a model system to study the response to anticancer agents
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00280-012-1937-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Renata Matuo, Fabrício G. Sousa, Daniele G. Soares, Diego Bonatto, Jenifer Saffi, Alexandre E. Escargueil, Annette K. Larsen, João Antonio Pêgas Henriques |
| Abstract |
The development of new strategies for cancer therapeutics is indispensable for the improvement of standard protocols and the creation of other possibilities in cancer treatment. Yeast models have been employed to study numerous molecular aspects directly related to cancer development, as well as to determine the genetic contexts associated with anticancer drug sensitivity or resistance. The budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae presents conserved cellular processes with high homology to humans, and it is a rapid, inexpensive and efficient compound screening tool. However, yeast models are still underused in cancer research and for screening of antineoplastic agents. Here, the employment of S. cerevisiae as a model system to anticancer research is discussed and exemplified. Focusing on the important determinants in genomic maintenance and cancer development, including DNA repair, cell cycle control and epigenetics, this review proposes the use of mutant yeast panels to mimic cancer phenotypes, screen and study tumor features and synthetic lethal interactions. Finally, the benefits and limitations of the yeast model are highlighted, as well as the strategies to overcome S. cerevisiae model limitations. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 23 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 25 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 5% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 27 | 24% |
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 31 July 2022.
All research outputs
#7,856,604
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology
#688
of 2,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,908
of 166,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,501 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 166,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.