↓ Skip to main content

eIF6 over-expression increases the motility and invasiveness of cancer cells by modulating the expression of a critical subset of membrane-bound proteins

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
eIF6 over-expression increases the motility and invasiveness of cancer cells by modulating the expression of a critical subset of membrane-bound proteins
Published in
BMC Cancer, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1106-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michela Pinzaglia, Claudia Montaldo, Dorina Polinari, Mattei Simone, Anna La Teana, Marco Tripodi, Carmine Mancone, Paola Londei, Dario Benelli

Abstract

Eukaryotic Initiation factor 6 (eIF6) is a peculiar translation initiation factor that binds to the large 60S ribosomal subunits, controlling translation initiation and participating in ribosome biogenesis. In the past, knowledge about the mechanisms adopted by the cells for controlling protein synthesis by extracellular stimuli has focused on two translation initiation factors (eIF4E and eIF2), however, recent data suggest eIF6 as a newcomer in the control of downstream of signal transduction pathways. eIF6 is over-expressed in tumors and its decreased expression renders cells less prone to tumor growth. A previous work from our laboratory has disclosed that over-expression of eIF6 in transformed cell lines markedly increased cell migration and invasion.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 January 2024.
All research outputs
#7,751,700
of 25,366,663 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,035
of 8,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,898
of 268,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#45
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,366,663 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,943 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 268,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.