↓ Skip to main content

Humanized Mouse Models for the Preclinical Assessment of Cancer Immunotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in BioDrugs, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Humanized Mouse Models for the Preclinical Assessment of Cancer Immunotherapy
Published in
BioDrugs, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40259-018-0275-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anja Kathrin Wege

Abstract

Immunotherapy is one of the most exciting recent breakthroughs in the field of cancer treatment. Many different approaches are being developed and a number have already gained regulatory approval or are under investigation in clinical trials. However, learning from the past, preclinical animal models often insufficiently reflect the physiological situation in humans, which subsequently causes treatment failures in clinical trials. Due to species-specific differences in most parts of the immune system, the transfer of knowledge from preclinical studies to clinical trials is eminently challenging. Human tumor cell line-based or patient-derived xenografts in immunocompromised mice have been successfully applied in the preclinical testing of cytotoxic or molecularly targeted agents, but naturally these systems lack the human immune system counterpart. The co-transplantation of human peripheral blood mononuclear cells or hematopoietic stem cells is employed to overcome this limitation. This review summarizes some important aspects of the different available tumor xenograft mouse models, their history, and their implementation in drug development and personalized therapy. Moreover, recent progress, opportunities and limitations of different humanized mouse models will be discussed.

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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 26 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 31 38%
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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,640,052
of 23,923,788 outputs
Outputs from BioDrugs
#588
of 688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,500
of 333,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioDrugs
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,923,788 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 688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 333,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.