| Title |
Epigenetic mechanisms in cancer: push and pull between kneaded erasers and fate writers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s82527 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ammad Ahmad Farooqi, Jen-Yang Tang, Ruei-Nian Li, Muhammad Ismail, Yung-Ting Chang, Chih-Wen Shu, Shyng-Shiou F Yuan, Jing-Ru Liu, Qaisar Mansoor, Chih-Jen Huang, Hsueh-Wei Chang |
| Abstract |
Research concerning the epigenome over the years has systematically and sequentially shown substantial development and we have moved from global inhibition of modifications of the epigenome toward identification and targeted therapy against tumor-specific epigenetic mechanisms. In accordance with this approach, several drugs with epigenetically modulating activity have received considerable attention and appreciation, and recently emerging scientific evidence is uncovering details of their mode of action. High-throughput technologies have considerably improved our existing understanding of tumor suppressors, oncogenes, and signaling pathways that are key drivers of cancer. In this review, we summarize the general epigenetic mechanisms in cancer, including: the post-translational modification of DNA methyltransferase and its mediated inactivation of Ras association domain family 1 isoform A, Sonic hedgehog signaling, Wnt signaling, Notch signaling, transforming growth factor signaling, and natural products with epigenetic modification ability. Moreover, we introduce the importance of nanomedicine for delivery of natural products with modulating ability to epigenetic machinery in cancer cells. Such in-depth and comprehensive knowledge regarding epigenetic dysregulation will be helpful in the upcoming era of molecular genomic pathology for both detection and treatment of cancer. Epigenetic information will also be helpful when nanotherapy is used for epigenetic modification. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 23% |
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
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 23 May 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#3,598
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,617
of 279,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#74
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. 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 279,170 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 85 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.