↓ Skip to main content

Functional significance of erythropoietin in renal cell carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Functional significance of erythropoietin in renal cell carcinoma
Published in
BMC Cancer, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-13-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christudas Morais, David W Johnson, David A Vesey, Glenda C Gobe

Abstract

One of the molecules regulated by the transcription factor, hypoxia inducible factor (HIF), is the hypoxia-responsive hematopoietic factor, erythropoietin (EPO). This may have relevance to the development of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), where mutations of the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) gene are major risk factors for the development of familial and sporadic RCC. VHL mutations up-regulate and stabilize HIF, which in turn activates many downstream molecules, including EPO, that are known to promote angiogenesis, drug resistance, proliferation and progression of solid tumours. HIFs typically respond to hypoxic cellular environment. While the hypoxic microenvironment plays a critical role in the development and progression of tumours in general, it is of special significance in the case of RCC because of the link between VHL, HIF and EPO. EPO and its receptor, EPOR, are expressed in many cancers, including RCC. This limits the use of recombinant human EPO (rhEPO) to treat anaemia in cancer patients, because the rhEPO may be stimulatory to the cancer. EPO may also stimulate epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in RCC, and pathological EMT has a key role in cancer progression. In this mini review, we summarize the current knowledge of the role of EPO in RCC. The available data, either for or against the use of EPO in RCC patients, are equivocal and insufficient to draw a definitive conclusion.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 17 27%
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 January 2013.
All research outputs
#18,325,190
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#5,414
of 8,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,321
of 282,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#71
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,252 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 282,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.