↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative Evaluation of in Vivo Target Efficacy of Anti-tumor Agents via an Immunofluorescence and EdU Labeling Strategy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Quantitative Evaluation of in Vivo Target Efficacy of Anti-tumor Agents via an Immunofluorescence and EdU Labeling Strategy
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00812
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yujun He, Jin Wen, Qinghua Cui, Fangfang Lai, Dali Yin, Huaqing Cui

Abstract

Current methods used to evaluate in vivo target efficacy of selected compound include western blot to semi-quantitatively analyze protein expression. However, problems arise as it is difficult to compare in vivo target efficacy of anti-tumor agents with the same mode of action. It is therefore desirable to develop a protocol that can quantitatively display in vivo target efficacy while also providing other useful information. In this study EdU labeling was used to mark out the proliferating area. The tumor tissue was accordingly divided into proliferating and non-proliferating areas. Fifteen tumor related proteins were stained by immunofluorescence and were found to express in either the proliferating or non-proliferating areas. This allows the quantitative analysis of protein expressions within the precise area. With simple image analysis, our method gave precise percent changes of protein expression and cell proliferation between the drugs treated group and the control group. Additional information, such as, the status of protein expression can also be obtained. This method exhibits high sensitivity, and provides a quantitative approach for in vivo evaluation of target efficacy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 1 17%
Researcher 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 1 17%
Engineering 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%
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 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,529,980
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#10,326
of 16,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,660
of 330,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#275
of 398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 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 16,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. 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 330,304 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 398 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.