↓ Skip to main content

CDK4 expression in chordoma: A potential therapeutic target

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 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.
Title
CDK4 expression in chordoma: A potential therapeutic target
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/jor.23819
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tang Liu, Jacson K. Shen, Edwin Choy, Yu Zhang, Henry J. Mankin, Francis J. Hornicek, Zhenfeng Duan

Abstract

Chordomas are rare bone tumors and treatment is commonly based on a combination of surgery and radiotherapy. There is no standard chemotherapy for treatment for chordoma. The aim of this study was to determine the expression of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) in chordoma and its therapeutic implications. We evaluated CDK4 expression both in chordoma cell lines and in chordoma tissues. Also, we investigated the functional roles of CDK4 in chordoma cell growth and proliferation. Furthermore, the therapeutic implications of targeting CDK4 in chordoma were evaluated. We found CDK4 highly expressed in chordoma cell lines and in a majority (97.7%) of chordoma tissues. Higher CDK4 expression correlated with metastasis and recurrence of chordoma. Treatment of chordoma cells using CDK4 inhibitor palbociclib could efficiently inhibit chordoma cells growth and proliferation. These data demonstrate that targeting CDK4 may be useful as a novel strategy in the treatment of chordoma. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 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 > Postgraduate 3 21%
Unspecified 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 21%
Social Sciences 2 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Unknown 6 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,094,413
of 12,413,055 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Research
#379
of 2,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,152
of 358,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Research
#15
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,413,055 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,261 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. 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 358,650 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.