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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Optimized creation of glioblastoma patient derived xenografts for use in preclinical studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-017-1128-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Doreen William, Christina Susanne Mullins, Björn Schneider, Andrea Orthmann, Nora Lamp, Mathias Krohn, Annika Hoffmann, Carl-Friedrich Classen, Michael Linnebacher |
| Abstract |
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and lethal brain tumor in adults, highlighting the need for novel treatment strategies. Patient derived xenografts (PDX) represent a valuable tool to accomplish this task. PDX were established by implanting GBM tissue subcutaneously. Engraftment success was compared between NMRI Foxn1(nu) and NOD/SCID as well as between fresh and cryopreserved tissue. Established PDX were analyzed histologically and molecularly. Five PDX were experimentally treated with different drugs to assess their potential for preclinical drug testing. Establishment of PDX was attempted for 36 consecutive GBM cases with an overall success rate of 22.2% in NMRI Foxn1(nu) mice. No difference was observed between fresh or cryopreserved (20-1057 days) tissue in direct comparison (n = 10 cases). Additionally, engraftment was better in NOD/SCID mice (38.8%) directly compared to NMRI Foxn1(nu) mice (27.7%) (n = 18 cases). Molecular data and histology of the PDX compare well to the primary GBM. The experimental treatment revealed individual differences in the sensitivity towards several clinically relevant drugs. The use of vitally frozen GBM tissue allows a more convenient workflow without efficiency loss. NOD/SCID mice appear to be better suited for initial engraftment of tumor tissue compared to NMRI Foxn1(nu) mice. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 23% |
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
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 06 November 2018.
All research outputs
#17,876,644
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,753
of 4,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,207
of 420,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#58
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 420,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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.