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
| Chapter title |
Tumor Microenvironment
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 9 |
| Book title |
Tumor Microenvironment
|
| Published in |
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-3-319-26666-4_9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-3-31-926664-0, 978-3-31-926666-4
|
| Authors |
Murugan, Sengottuvelan, Amaravadi, Ravi K, Sengottuvelan Murugan, Ravi K. Amaravadi, Amaravadi, Ravi K. |
| Abstract |
Defective autophagy has been linked with many pathologies, including cancer, diabetes, infectious disease, myopathies, heart, liver, lung, and neurodegenerative disease. Autophagy has therefore become an important target in drug discovery. Recent advances have identified new ways to monitor autophagy in vitro and in vivo. Many assays rely on visualizing autophagy-related intracellular markers such as microtubule-associated protein light chain 3 (LC3) II, which have posed issues with in vivo and clinical translation of the in vitro assays. Here, we present an overview of current in vitro and in vivo methodologies to measure autophagy with a special focus on the tumor microenvironment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 32 | 36% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 32 | 36% |
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 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,379,002
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#2,507
of 4,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,982
of 393,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#220
of 443 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,950 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 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 393,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 443 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.