| Title |
The microRNA signatures: aberrantly expressed miRNAs in prostate cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Oncology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12094-018-1910-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
N. Sharma, M. M. Baruah |
| Abstract |
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short, non-coding, conserved, oligonucleotides that are regulatory in nature and are often dysregulated in many cancers including prostate cancer. Depending on the level of complementarity between the miRNA and mRNA target, they can either inhibit translation or degrade the target mRNA. MiRNAs expression is specific to the type of cancer, its stage and level of metastasis, making miRNAs potential stage-specific biomarkers of cancer. Recent research has shown that these miRNAs have the potential to be a diagnostic and prognostic non-invasive biomarker for various cancers including prostate cancer. Various miRNAs have been reported as novel biomarkers for prostate cancer therapy. However, there is inconsistency in the data reported and no overlapping expression pattern could be found. In this review, we have highlighted the most consistently reported dysregulated miRNAs in prostate cancer from the existing literature and discussed the currently available data on their role in regulating the hallmarks of prostate cancer. These four most consistently reported dysregulated miRNAs viz. miRNA-141, miRNA-375, miRNA-221 and miRNA-21 need to be further validated in terms of their regulatory potential in regulating various pathways important for prostate cancer management. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 25 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 24 | 38% |
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 15 May 2019.
All research outputs
#19,168,145
of 24,406,441 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#858
of 1,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,903
of 333,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#15
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,406,441 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,409 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 333,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.