↓ Skip to main content

Can metabolic plasticity be a cause for cancer? Warburg–Waddington legacy revisited

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epigenetics, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Can metabolic plasticity be a cause for cancer? Warburg–Waddington legacy revisited
Published in
Clinical Epigenetics, April 2011
DOI 10.1007/s13148-011-0030-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paike Jayadeva Bhat, Lalit Darunte, Venkatesh Kareenhalli, Jaswandi Dandekar, Abhay Kumar

Abstract

Fermentation of glucose to lactate in the presence of sufficient oxygen, known as aerobic glycolysis or Warburg effect, is a universal phenotype of cancer cells. Understanding its origin and role in cellular immortalization and transformation has attracted considerable attention in the recent past. Intriguingly, while we now know that Warburg effect is essential for tumor growth and development, it is thought to arise because of genetic and/or epigenetic changes. In contrast to the above, we propose that Warburg effect can also arise due to normal biochemical fluctuations, independent of genetic and epigenetic changes. Cells that have acquired Warburg effect proliferate rapidly to give rise to a population of heterogeneous progenitors of cancer cells. Such cells also generate more lactate and alter the fitness landscape. This dynamic fitness landscape facilitates evolution of cancer cells from its progenitors, in a fashion analogous to Darwinian evolution. Thus, sporadic cancer can also occur first by the acquisition of Warburg effect, then followed by mutation and selection. The idea proposed here circumvents the inherent difficulties associated with the current understanding of tumorigenesis, and is also consistent with many experimental and epidemiological observations. We discuss this model in the context of epigenetics as originally enunciated by Waddington.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 26%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Philosophy 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 3 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 February 2013.
All research outputs
#14,618,528
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#772
of 1,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,314
of 108,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 108,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.