↓ Skip to main content

Patient-derived human tumour tissue xenografts in immunodeficient mice: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Oncology, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
3 patents
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
189 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
Title
Patient-derived human tumour tissue xenografts in immunodeficient mice: a systematic review
Published in
Clinical and Translational Oncology, July 2010
DOI 10.1007/s12094-010-0540-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ketao Jin, Lisong Teng, Yanping Shen, Kuifeng He, Zhenzhen Xu, Guangliang Li

Abstract

Mouse cancer models have consistently been used to qualify new anticancer drugs in the development of human clinical trials. Rodent tumour models currently being used and which include transgenic tumour models, and those generated by planting human tumour cell lines subcutaneously in immunodeficient mice, do not sufficiently represent clinical cancer characteristics, especially with regard to metastasis and drug sensitivity. The increasingly used patient-derived human tumour tissue (PDTT) xenografts models implanted subcutaneously or in subrenal capsule in immunodeficient mice, such as athymic nude mice or severe combined immunedeficient (SCID) mice, may provide a more accurate reflection of human tumour biological characteristics than tumour cell lines. The ability to passage patients' fresh tumour tissues into large numbers of immunodeficient mice provides possibilities for better preclinical testing of new therapies for the treatment and better outcome for cancer. In this review, we outline the methods of establishing xenograft models, discuss the biological stability of PDTT xenograft models and demonstrate their roles in developing new anticancer drugs and testing therapeutic regimens in cancer patients.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 189 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 17%
Student > Master 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Other 12 6%
Other 38 19%
Unknown 34 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 18%
Engineering 6 3%
Chemistry 5 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 45 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 March 2024.
All research outputs
#5,576,494
of 23,445,423 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#208
of 1,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,057
of 96,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,445,423 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,348 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 96,140 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them