| Title |
Animal models of colorectal cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10555-012-9404-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert L. Johnson, James C. Fleet |
| Abstract |
Colorectal cancer is a heterogeneous disease that afflicts a large number of people in the USA. The use of animal models has the potential to increase our understanding of carcinogenesis, tumor biology, and the impact of specific molecular events on colon biology. In addition, animal models with features of specific human colorectal cancers can be used to test strategies for cancer prevention and treatment. In this review, we provide an overview of the mechanisms driving human cancer, we discuss the approaches one can take to model colon cancer in animals, and we describe a number of specific animal models that have been developed for the study of colon cancer. We believe that there are many valuable animal models to study various aspects of human colorectal cancer. However, opportunities for improving upon these models exist. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 300 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 87 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 46 | 15% |
| Researcher | 38 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 40 | 13% |
| Unknown | 47 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 70 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 69 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 19 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 13 | 4% |
| Other | 35 | 11% |
| Unknown | 63 | 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,445,779
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer and Metastasis Reviews
#672
of 809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,491
of 176,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer and Metastasis Reviews
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 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 809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 176,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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.