| Title |
NMDA receptors are important regulators of pancreatic cancer and are potential targets for treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Pharmacology : Advances and Applications, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cpaa.s140057 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William G North, Fuli Liu, Liz Z Lin, Ruiyang Tian, Bonnie Akerman |
| Abstract |
Pancreatic cancer, particularly adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, is a common disease with a poor prognosis. In this study, the importance of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors for the growth and survival of pancreatic cancer was investigated. Immunohistochemistry performed with antibodies against GluN1 and GluN2B revealed that all invasive adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors likely express these two NMDA receptor proteins. These proteins were found to be membrane components of pancreatic cancer cell lines, and both channel-blocker antagonist and GluN2B antagonist significantly reduced cell viability in vitro. Both types of antagonists caused an internalization of the receptors. Dizocilpine maleate (MK-801) and ifenprodil hemitartrate both significantly inhibited the growth of pancreatic tumor xenografts in nu/nu mice. These findings predict that, as for other solid tumors investigated by us, pancreatic cancer could be successfully treated, alone or in combination, with NMDA receptor antagonists or other receptor-inhibiting blocking agents. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 43% |
| Mexico | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,809,771
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacology : Advances and Applications
#48
of 179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,002
of 326,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacology : Advances and Applications
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 326,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.