| Title |
Low claudin-6 expression correlates with poor prognosis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s85478 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qiang Wang, Yan Zhang, Tao Zhang, Zhi-Gang Han, Li Shan |
| Abstract |
Claudins are found in junctional complexes mediating cell adhesion and are involved in the attachment of tight junctions to the underlying cytoskeleton. Abnormal claudin-6 expression has been observed for a variety of malignant solid tumors, but the expression of claudin-6 in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not yet been characterized. Immunohistochemistry, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and western blot analysis were used to quantify claudin-6 expression in 123 cases of NSCLC and non-cancerous adjacent tissue. We analyzed the relationship between claudin-6 expression and clinicopathological features of NSCLC. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze postoperative survival rates, and the log-rank test was used to assess differences in survival rates. The Cox regression model was used to perform multivariate analysis. Claudin-6 expression was low for 61 of 123 (49.6%) NSCLC tissue samples and for 33 of 123 (26.8%) normal adjacent tissue samples. RT-PCR and western blot analyses confirmed the immunohistochemistry results. Claudin-6 expression was associated with lymph node metastasis (P<0.001) and TNM stage (P=0.007). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that patients with low claudin-6 expression had significantly lower survival rates than those with high claudin-6 expression. Multivariate analysis suggested that low claudin-6 expression was an independent indicator of prognosis in NSCLC patients. Low claudin-6 expression is an independent prognostic biomarker that indicates a worse prognosis in patients with NSCLC. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 15% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 23% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 15% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
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 04 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,342,608
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,026
of 2,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,934
of 263,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#30
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,933 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. 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 263,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.