| Title |
Existing drugs and their application in drug discovery targeting cancer stem cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Pharmacal Research, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12272-015-0628-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Junfang Lv, Joong Sup Shim |
| Abstract |
Despite standard cancer therapies such as chemotherapy and targeted therapy have shown some efficacies, the cancer in many cases eventually relapses and metastasizes upon stopping the treatment. There is a small subpopulation of cancer cells within tumor, with specific characters similar to those found in stem cells. This group of cancer cells is known as tumor-initiating or cancer stem cells (CSCs), which have an ability to self-renew and give rise to cancer cell progeny. CSCs are related with drug resistance, metastasis and relapse of cancer, hence emerging as a crucial drug target for eliminating cancer. Rapid advancement of CSC biology has enabled researchers to isolate and culture CSCs in vitro, making the cells amenable to high-throughput drug screening. Recently, drug repositioning, which utilizes existing drugs to develop potential new indications, has been gaining popularity as an alternative approach for the drug discovery. As existing drugs have favorable bioavailability and safety profiles, drug repositioning is now actively exploited for prompt development of therapeutics for many serious diseases, such as cancer. In this review, we will introduce latest examples of attempted drug repositioning targeting CSCs and discuss potential use of the repositioned drugs for cancer therapy. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 28% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 13% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 10% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
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 25 July 2015.
All research outputs
#18,420,033
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Pharmacal Research
#1,045
of 1,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,597
of 262,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Pharmacal Research
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 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 1,296 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 262,214 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 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.