↓ Skip to main content

Translational Research in Pain and Itch

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 4: New Mechanism of Bone Cancer Pain: Tumor Tissue-Derived Endogenous Formaldehyde Induced Bone Cancer Pain via TRPV1 Activation
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
New Mechanism of Bone Cancer Pain: Tumor Tissue-Derived Endogenous Formaldehyde Induced Bone Cancer Pain via TRPV1 Activation
Chapter number 4
Book title
Translational Research in Pain and Itch
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-7537-3_4
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-9-40-177535-9, 978-9-40-177537-3
Authors

Wan, You, You Wan

Abstract

In recent years, our serial investigations focused on the role of cancer cells-derived endogenous formaldehyde in bone cancer pain. We found that cancer cells produced formaldehyde through demethylation process by serine hydroxymethyltransferase (SHMT1 and SHMT2) and lysine-specific histone demethylase 1 (LSD1). When the cancer cells metastasized into bone marrow, the elevated endogenous formaldehyde induced bone cancer pain through activation on the transient receptor potential vanilloid subfamily member 1 (TRPV1) in the peripheral nerve fibers. More interestingly, TRPV1 expressions in the peripheral fibers were upregulated by the local insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) produced by the activated osteoblasts. In conclusion, tumor tissue-derived endogenous formaldehyde induced bone cancer pain via TRPV1 activation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Professor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 37%
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 24 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,361,255
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#2,504
of 4,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,892
of 393,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#220
of 443 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 393,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 443 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.