↓ Skip to main content

Sexual dimorphism of liver metastasis by murine pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is affected by expression of complement C5

Overview of attention for article published in Oncotarget, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sexual dimorphism of liver metastasis by murine pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is affected by expression of complement C5
Published in
Oncotarget, April 2016
DOI 10.18632/oncotarget.8874
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanupriya Contractor, Shinta Kobayashi, Edaise da Silva, Richard Clausen, Chang Chan, Evan Vosburgh, Laura H. Tang, Arnold J. Levine, Chris R. Harris

Abstract

In a mouse model for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (PanNETs), liver metastasis occurred at a higher frequency in males. Male mice also had higher serum and intratumoral levels of the innate immunity protein complement C5. In mice that lost the ability to express complement C5, there was a lower frequency of metastasis, and males no longer had a higher frequency of metastasis than females. Treatment with PMX53, a small molecule antagonist of C5aR1/CD88, the receptor for complement C5a, also reduced metastasis. Mice lacking a functional gene for complement C5 had smaller primary tumors, which were less invasive and lacked the CD68+ macrophages that have previously been associated with metastasis in this type of tumor. This is the first report of a gene that causes sexual dimorphism of metastasis in a mouse model. In the human disease, which also shows sexual dimorphism for metastasis, clinically advanced tumors expressed more complement C5 than less advanced tumors.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Other 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 April 2016.
All research outputs
#19,015,492
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Oncotarget
#8,634
of 14,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,084
of 301,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oncotarget
#682
of 1,288 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 14,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 301,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,288 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.