| Title |
Can we use high precision metal isotope analysis to improve our understanding of cancer?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-015-9201-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fiona Larner |
| Abstract |
High precision natural isotope analyses are widely used in geosciences to trace elemental transport pathways. The use of this analytical tool is increasing in nutritional and disease-related research. In recent months, a number of groups have shown the potential this technique has in providing new observations for various cancers when applied to trace metal metabolism. The deconvolution of isotopic signatures, however, relies on mathematical models and geochemical data, which are not representative of the system under investigation. In addition to relevant biochemical studies of protein-metal isotopic interactions, technological development both in terms of sample throughput and detection sensitivity of these elements is now needed to translate this novel approach into a mainstream analytical tool. Following this, essential background healthy population studies must be performed, alongside observational, cross-sectional disease-based studies. Only then can the sensitivity and specificity of isotopic analyses be tested alongside currently employed methods, and important questions such as the influence of cancer heterogeneity and disease stage on isotopic signatures be addressed. Graphical Abstract High precision isotopic analyses have recently been applied to cancer research in an attempt to provide diagnostic tools and improve understanding of the disease. Is there a future for this approach? |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 23% |
| Researcher | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 6 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 15% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 15% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
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 19 January 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#7,541
of 9,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#337,274
of 395,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#80
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,618 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 395,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.