↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Positive feedback between oncogenic KRAS and HIF-1α confers drug resistance in colorectal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Positive feedback between oncogenic KRAS and HIF-1α confers drug resistance in colorectal cancer
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/ott.s80017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yanzhao Wang, Fuming Lei, Wanshui Rong, Qingmin Zeng, Wenbing Sun

Abstract

Approximately 30%-50% of colorectal cancers (CRCs) harbor the somatic mutated KRAS gene. KRAS G12V, one of the most common KRAS mutations in CRCs, is linked to increased tumor aggressiveness, less response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy, and poor survival rate. In this study, we sought to determine whether resistance to EGFR inhibitors in colorectal cancer cells harboring KRAS G12V mutation is associated with hypoxia. Our data indicated that HIF-1α was induced by KRAS G12V signaling at transcription level. Hypoxia or HIF-1α overexpression could increase KRAS G12V activity. Therefore, a positive feedback between hypoxia and KRAS G12V activation was formed. Cetuximab, an EGFR inhibitor, which has a minor effect on KRAS-mutant CRCs, could effectively inhibit the proliferation of CRC cells harboring KRAS G12V mutation when combined with HIF-1α inhibitor PX-478. Our data indicated that hypoxia was involved in resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, and a combination therapy might be necessary for CRC patients with KRAS mutation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 29%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Chemical Engineering 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 7 17%
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 11 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,597
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,515
of 278,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#31
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 278,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.