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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Senescent Cells in Growing Tumors: Population Dynamics and Cancer Stem Cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002316 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caterina A. M. La Porta, Stefano Zapperi, James P. Sethna |
| Abstract |
Tumors are defined by their intense proliferation, but sometimes cancer cells turn senescent and stop replicating. In the stochastic cancer model in which all cells are tumorigenic, senescence is seen as the result of random mutations, suggesting that it could represent a barrier to tumor growth. In the hierarchical cancer model a subset of the cells, the cancer stem cells, divide indefinitely while other cells eventually turn senescent. Here we formulate cancer growth in mathematical terms and obtain predictions for the evolution of senescence. We perform experiments in human melanoma cells which are compatible with the hierarchical model and show that senescence is a reversible process controlled by survivin. We conclude that enhancing senescence is unlikely to provide a useful therapeutic strategy to fight cancer, unless the cancer stem cells are specifically targeted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 100 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Professor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 50 | 45% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 11% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 9 | 8% |
| Mathematics | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,755,393
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,756
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,711
of 251,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#61
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 251,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.