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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Tumor-Initiating Cells: a criTICal review of isolation approaches and new challenges in targeting strategies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Molecular Cancer, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12943-017-0602-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Komal Qureshi-Baig, Pit Ullmann, Serge Haan, Elisabeth Letellier |
| Abstract |
Most cancers contain a subpopulation of highly tumorigenic cells, known as cancer stem cells (CSCs) or tumor-initiating cells (TICs). Targeting TICs may be essential to achieve cure, because of their self-renewal and tumorigenic properties as well as their resistance to conventional therapies. Despite significant advances in TIC biology, their isolation and identification remain largely disputed and incompletely established. In this review, we discuss the latest developments in isolation and culturing approaches of TICs, with focus on colorectal cancer (CRC). We feature recent findings on TIC-relevant signaling pathways and the metabolic identity of TICs, as well as their current clinical implications. Lastly, we highlight the influence of inter- and intra-tumoral heterogeneity on TIC function and targeting approaches. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Luxembourg | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 112 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 26% |
| Researcher | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 28 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 28 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 November 2020.
All research outputs
#14,334,914
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Cancer
#903
of 1,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,847
of 307,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Cancer
#20
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 307,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.