| Title |
Does it make sense to target one tumor cell chemotactic factor or its receptor when several chemotactic axes are involved in metastasis of the same cancer?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Medicine, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40169-016-0113-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariusz Z. Ratajczak, Malwina Suszynska, Magda Kucia |
| Abstract |
The major problem with cancer progression and anti-cancer therapy is the inherent ability of cancer cells to migrate and establish distant metastases. This ability to metastasize correlates with the presence in a growing tumor of cells with a more malignant phenotype, which express certain cancer stem cell markers. The propensity of malignant cells to migrate and their resistance to radio-chemotherapy somewhat mimics the properties of normal developmentally early stem cells that migrate during organogenesis in the developing embryo. In the past, several factors, including cell migration-promoting cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, bioactive lipids, extracellular nucleotides, and even H(+) ions, were found to influence the metastasis of cancer cells. This plethora of pro-migratory factors demonstrates the existence of significant redundancy in the chemoattractants for cancer cells. In spite of this obvious fact, significant research effort has been dedicated to demonstrating the crucial involvement of particular pro-metastatic factor-receptor axes and the development of new drugs targeting one receptor or one chemoattractant. Based on our own experience working with a model of metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma as well as the work of others, in this review we conclude that targeting a single receptor-ligand pro-metastatic axis will not effectively prevent metastasis and that we should seek other more effective therapeutic options. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
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 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#433
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,232
of 371,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 371,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.