↓ Skip to main content

Cell Division Machinery and Disease

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 3: Dividing with Extra Centrosomes: A Double Edged Sword for Cancer Cells
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.
Chapter title
Dividing with Extra Centrosomes: A Double Edged Sword for Cancer Cells
Chapter number 3
Book title
Cell Division Machinery and Disease
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57127-0_3
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-957125-6, 978-3-31-957127-0
Authors

Rhys, Alexander D., Godinho, Susana A., Alexander D. Rhys, Susana A. Godinho

Editors

Monica Gotta, Patrick Meraldi

Abstract

The presence of supernumerary centrosomes is a hallmark of human tumours. Recent work in animal models suggests that extra centrosomes are not just bystanders in cancer but can accelerate tumourigenesis in the absence of the tumour suppressor p53. Centrosome amplification could indeed actively participate in tumour progression through the induction of chromosome instability, disruption of tissue architecture and promoting cell invasion. Paradoxically, however, centrosome amplification is rather poorly tolerated in normal cells and there are several hurdles cells need to overcome in order to efficiently proliferate in the presence of extra centrosomes. Here, we review the adaptation mechanisms that allow cells to efficiently divide in the presence of extra centrosomes and how these could be exploited to develop selective cancer therapies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 58%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 3 10%
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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,427,593
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#3,983
of 4,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,730
of 317,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#97
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 317,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.