| Title |
Influence of the interaction between long noncoding RNAs and hypoxia on tumorigenesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tumor Biology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13277-015-4457-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jun Dong, Jiangbing Xu, Xiang Wang, Bilian Jin |
| Abstract |
The interaction between cancer and its microenvironment is crucial for survival and development of cancerous cells. Tumor microenvironment is usually under hypoxia, which promotes tumor aggressiveness like growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis. How cancer cells respond to hypoxia and the resultant impact on tumorigenesis are not yet fully explored. Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been attracting more and more attention since their functions in regulating gene expression at chromatic, transcriptional, and posttranscriptional levels were found. lncRNAs are dysregulated in cancer and act as oncogenes or tumor suppressors. Moreover, emerging evidence has been provided that the expression of lncRNAs changes with the stimulus of hypoxia and they in turn produce a significant influence on the hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF), the most common transcription regulator in response to hypoxia. In this review, we discuss the recent findings of hypoxia-responsive lncRNAs and summarize their interaction with hypoxia to further understand their roles in cancer growth, metabolism, angiogenesis, and metastasis and their potential for cancer diagnosis and treatment. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 26% |
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 26% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#19,054,237
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,389
of 2,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282,925
of 389,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#129
of 322 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 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 2,614 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 389,956 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 322 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.