↓ Skip to main content

Effects of hyperthermia on DNA repair pathways: one treatment to inhibit them all

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
187 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
Effects of hyperthermia on DNA repair pathways: one treatment to inhibit them all
Published in
Radiation Oncology, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0462-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arlene L. Oei, Lianne E. M. Vriend, Johannes Crezee, Nicolaas A. P. Franken, Przemek M. Krawczyk

Abstract

The currently available arsenal of anticancer modalities includes many DNA damaging agents that can kill malignant cells. However, efficient DNA repair mechanisms protect both healthy and cancer cells against the effects of treatment and contribute to the development of drug resistance. Therefore, anti-cancer treatments based on inflicting DNA damage can benefit from inhibition of DNA repair. Hyperthermia - treatment at elevated temperature - considerably affects DNA repair, among other cellular processes, and can thus sensitize (cancer) cells to DNA damaging agents. This effect has been known and clinically applied for many decades, but how heat inhibits DNA repair and which pathways are targeted has not been fully elucidated. In this review we attempt to summarize the known effects of hyperthermia on DNA repair pathways relevant in clinical treatment of cancer. Furthermore, we outline the relationships between the effects of heat on DNA repair and sensitization of cells to various DNA damaging agents.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 170 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 21%
Student > Master 28 16%
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Researcher 23 13%
Other 9 5%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 28 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 11%
Engineering 11 6%
Physics and Astronomy 8 5%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 41 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,375,891
of 6,615,543 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#236
of 1,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,773
of 198,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#20
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,615,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 63rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,013 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 198,188 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 61% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.