↓ Skip to main content

Systems Biology

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Systems Biology'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Conceptual Challenges in the Theoretical Foundations of Systems Biology
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 An Integrative Approach Toward Biology, Organisms, and Cancer
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 Conceptual Challenges of the Systemic Approach in Understanding Cell Differentiation
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 A Primer on Mathematical Modeling in the Study of Organisms and Their Parts
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 The Search for System’s Parameters
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 Inverse Problems in Systems Biology: A Critical Review
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Systems Biology Approach and Mathematical Modeling for Analyzing Phase-Space Switch During Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 Parameters Estimation in Phase-Space Landscape Reconstruction of Cell Fate: A Systems Biology Approach
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Complexity of Biochemical and Genetic Responses Reduced Using Simple Theoretical Models
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Systems Biology Modeling of Nonlinear Cancer Dynamics
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Endogenous Molecular-Cellular Network Cancer Theory: A Systems Biology Approach
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 A Network-Based Integrative Workflow to Unravel Mechanisms Underlying Disease Progression
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Spatiotemporal Fluctuation Analysis of Molecular Diffusion Laws in Live-Cell Membranes
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 A Method for Cross-Species Visualization and Analysis of RNA-Sequence Data
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 Multi-agent Simulations of Population Behavior: A Promising Tool for Systems Biology
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 Metabolomics: Challenges and Opportunities in Systems Biology Studies
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Systems Biology-Driven Hypotheses Tested In Vivo: The Need to Advancing Molecular Imaging Tools
Attention for Chapter 11: Endogenous Molecular-Cellular Network Cancer Theory: A Systems Biology Approach
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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.
Chapter title
Endogenous Molecular-Cellular Network Cancer Theory: A Systems Biology Approach
Chapter number 11
Book title
Systems Biology
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7456-6_11
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7455-9, 978-1-4939-7456-6
Authors

Wang, Gaowei, Yuan, Ruoshi, Zhu, Xiaomei, Ao, Ping, Gaowei Wang, Ruoshi Yuan, Xiaomei Zhu, Ping Ao

Abstract

In light of ever apparent limitation of the current dominant cancer mutation theory, a quantitative hypothesis for cancer genesis and progression, endogenous molecular-cellular network hypothesis has been proposed from the systems biology perspective, now for more than 10 years. It was intended to include both the genetic and epigenetic causes to understand cancer. Its development enters the stage of meaningful interaction with experimental and clinical data and the limitation of the traditional cancer mutation theory becomes more evident. Under this endogenous network hypothesis, we established a core working network of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) according to the hypothesis and quantified the working network by a nonlinear dynamical system. We showed that the two stable states of the working network reproduce the main known features of normal liver and HCC at both the modular and molecular levels. Using endogenous network hypothesis and validated working network, we explored genetic mutation pattern in cancer and potential strategies to cure or relieve HCC from a totally new perspective. Patterns of genetic mutations have been traditionally analyzed by posteriori statistical association approaches in light of traditional cancer mutation theory. One may wonder the possibility of a priori determination of any mutation regularity. Here, we found that based on the endogenous network theory the features of genetic mutations in cancers may be predicted without any prior knowledge of mutation propensities. Normal hepatocyte and cancerous hepatocyte stable states, specified by distinct patterns of expressions or activities of proteins in the network, provide means to directly identify a set of most probable genetic mutations and their effects in HCC. As the key proteins and main interactions in the network are conserved through cell types in an organism, similar mutational features may also be found in other cancers. This analysis yielded straightforward and testable predictions on an accumulated and preferred mutation spectrum in normal tissue. The validation of predicted cancer state mutation patterns demonstrates the usefulness and potential of a causal dynamical framework to understand and predict genetic mutations in cancer. We also obtained the following implication related to HCC therapy, (1) specific positive feedback loops are responsible for the maintenance of normal liver and HCC; (2) inhibiting proliferation and inflammation-related positive feedback loops, and simultaneously inducing liver-specific positive feedback loop is predicated as the potential strategy to cure or relieve HCC; (3) the genesis and regression of HCC is asymmetric. In light of the characteristic property of the nonlinear dynamical system, we demonstrate that positive feedback loops must be existed as a simple and general molecular basis for the maintenance of phenotypes such as normal liver and HCC, and regulating the positive feedback loops directly or indirectly provides potential strategies to cure or relieve HCC.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Professor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 14%
Physics and Astronomy 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 29%
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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,345,259
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,513
of 13,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,977
of 332,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#28
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,353 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 332,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.