↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cancer stem cell theory: therapeutic implications for nanomedicine

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Cancer stem cell theory: therapeutic implications for nanomedicine
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, February 2013
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s38641
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ke Wang, Xianguo Wu, Jianwei Wang, Jian Huang

Abstract

Evidence continues to accumulate showing that tumors contain a minority population of cells responsible for tumor initiation, growth, and recurrence. These are termed "cancer stem cells" (CSCs). Functional assays have identified the self-renewal and tumor-initiation capabilities of CSCs. Moreover, recent studies have revealed that these CSCs is responsible for chemotherapy resistance within a tumor. Several mechanisms of chemoresistance have been proposed, including increased Wnt/β-catenin and Notch signaling, as well as high expression levels of adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette transporters, an active DNA repair capacity, and slow rate of self-renewal. Nanoscale drug-delivery systems, which transport therapeutically active molecules, prolong circulation, and improve biodistribution in the body, may allow more effective and specific therapies to address the challenges posed by CSCs. In particular, some nanovehicles are being exploited for selective drug delivery to CSCs and show promising results. In this review, we highlight the mechanisms of drug resistance and the novel strategies using nanoscale drugs to eliminate CSCs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
India 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Unknown 86 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 21%
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 16%
Chemistry 5 6%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 19 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,739,010
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,775
of 4,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,002
of 291,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#39
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 4,121 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 291,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.