↓ Skip to main content

Targeting brain tumor cAMP: the case for sex-specific therapeutics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Targeting brain tumor cAMP: the case for sex-specific therapeutics
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2015.00153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole M. Warrington, Tao Sun, Joshua B. Rubin

Abstract

A relationship between cyclic adenosine 3', 5'-monophosphate (cAMP) levels and brain tumor biology has been evident for nearly as long as cAMP and its synthetase, adenylate cyclase (ADCY) have been known. The importance of the pathway in brain tumorigenesis has been demonstrated in vitro and in multiple animal models. Recently, we provided human validation for a cooperating oncogenic role for cAMP in brain tumorigenesis when we found that SNPs in ADCY8 were correlated with glioma (brain tumor) risk in individuals with Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Together, these studies provide a strong rationale for targeting cAMP in brain tumor therapy. However, the cAMP pathway is well-known to be sexually dimorphic, and SNPs in ADCY8 affected glioma risk in a sex-specific fashion, elevating the risk for females while protecting males. The cAMP pathway can be targeted at multiple levels in the regulation of its synthesis and degradation. Sex differences in response to drugs that target cAMP regulators indicate that successful targeting of the cAMP pathway for brain tumor patients is likely to require matching specific mechanisms of drug action with patient sex.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Researcher 3 12%
Professor 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 6 24%
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 28 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,284,384
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#10,048
of 16,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,044
of 263,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#43
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,050 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 263,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.