↓ Skip to main content

Protein typing of circulating microvesicles allows real-time monitoring of glioblastoma therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Medicine, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
471 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
478 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
Protein typing of circulating microvesicles allows real-time monitoring of glioblastoma therapy
Published in
Nature Medicine, November 2012
DOI 10.1038/nm.2994
Pubmed ID
Authors

Huilin Shao, Jaehoon Chung, Leonora Balaj, Alain Charest, Darell D Bigner, Bob S Carter, Fred H Hochberg, Xandra O Breakefield, Ralph Weissleder, Hakho Lee

Abstract

Glioblastomas shed large quantities of small, membrane-bound microvesicles into the circulation. Although these hold promise as potential biomarkers of therapeutic response, their identification and quantification remain challenging. Here, we describe a highly sensitive and rapid analytical technique for profiling circulating microvesicles directly from blood samples of patients with glioblastoma. Microvesicles, introduced onto a dedicated microfluidic chip, are labeled with target-specific magnetic nanoparticles and detected by a miniaturized nuclear magnetic resonance system. Compared with current methods, this integrated system has a much higher detection sensitivity and can differentiate glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) microvesicles from nontumor host cell-derived microvesicles. We also show that circulating GBM microvesicles can be used to analyze primary tumor mutations and as a predictive metric of treatment-induced changes. This platform could provide both an early indicator of drug efficacy and a potential molecular stratifier for human clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 478 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 2%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 449 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 125 26%
Researcher 98 21%
Student > Master 56 12%
Student > Bachelor 35 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 6%
Other 81 17%
Unknown 53 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 96 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 73 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 64 13%
Engineering 62 13%
Chemistry 37 8%
Other 66 14%
Unknown 80 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 16 June 2021.
All research outputs
#412,177
of 18,248,093 outputs
Outputs from Nature Medicine
#1,228
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,535
of 162,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Medicine
#7
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,248,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 75.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 162,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.