↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Nanoparticle-based hyperthermia distinctly impacts production of ROS, expression of Ki-67, TOP2A, and TPX2, and induction of apoptosis in pancreatic cancer

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Nanoparticle-based hyperthermia distinctly impacts production of ROS, expression of Ki-67, TOP2A, and TPX2, and induction of apoptosis in pancreatic cancer
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, February 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s108577
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Ludwig, Francisco J Teran, Ulf Teichgraeber, Ingrid Hilger

Abstract

So far, the therapeutic outcome of hyperthermia has shown heterogeneous responses depending on how thermal stress is applied. We studied whether extrinsic heating (EH, hot air) and intrinsic heating (magnetic heating [MH] mediated by nanoparticles) induce distinct effects on pancreatic cancer cells (PANC-1 and BxPC-3 cells). The impact of MH (100 µg magnetic nanoparticles [MNP]/mL; H=23.9 kA/m; f=410 kHz) was always superior to that of EH. The thermal effects were confirmed by the following observations: 1) decreased number of vital cells, 2) altered expression of pro-caspases, and 3) production of reactive oxygen species, and 4) altered mRNA expression of Ki-67, TOP2A, and TPX2. The MH treatment of tumor xenografts significantly (P≤0.05) reduced tumor volumes. This means that different therapeutic outcomes of hyperthermia are related to the different responses cells exert to thermal stress. In particular, intratumoral MH is a valuable tool for the treatment of pancreatic cancers.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 26%
Materials Science 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 23 43%
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 14 March 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,971
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,054
of 424,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#61
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 424,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.