↓ Skip to main content

Chemotherapeutic Compounds Targeting the DNA Double-Strand Break Repair Pathways: The Good, the Bad, and the Promising

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 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
Chemotherapeutic Compounds Targeting the DNA Double-Strand Break Repair Pathways: The Good, the Bad, and the Promising
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2014.00086
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Jekimovs, Emma Bolderson, Amila Suraweera, Mark Adams, Kenneth J. O’Byrne, Derek J. Richard

Abstract

The repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) is a critical cellular mechanism that exists to ensure genomic stability. DNA DSBs are the most deleterious type of insult to a cell's genetic material and can lead to genomic instability, apoptosis, or senescence. Incorrectly repaired DNA DSBs have the potential to produce chromosomal translocations and genomic instability, potentially leading to cancer. The prevalence of DNA DSBs in cancer due to unregulated growth and errors in repair opens up a potential therapeutic window in the treatment of cancers. The cellular response to DNA DSBs is comprised of two pathways to ensure DNA breaks are repaired: homologous recombination and non-homologous end joining. Identifying chemotherapeutic compounds targeting proteins involved in these DNA repair pathways has shown promise as a cancer therapy for patients, either as a monotherapy or in combination with genotoxic drugs. From the beginning, there have been a number of chemotherapeutic compounds that have yielded successful responses in the clinic, a number that have failed (CGK-733 and iniparib), and a number of promising targets for future studies identified. This review looks in detail at how the cell responds to these DNA DSBs and investigates the chemotherapeutic avenues that have been and are currently being explored to target this repair process.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 203 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 20%
Researcher 35 17%
Student > Bachelor 27 13%
Student > Master 26 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 30 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 60 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 2%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 30 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 April 2014.
All research outputs
#14,814,057
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#3,848
of 22,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,391
of 242,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#19
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,805 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 242,464 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.