↓ Skip to main content

Re-purposing Chloroquine for Glioblastoma: Potential Merits and Confounding Variables

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Re-purposing Chloroquine for Glioblastoma: Potential Merits and Confounding Variables
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2018.00335
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Weyerhäuser, Sven R. Kantelhardt, Ella L. Kim

Abstract

There is a growing evidence that antimalarial chloroquine could be re-purposed for cancer treatment. A dozen of clinical trials have been initiated within the past 10 years to test the potential of chloroquine as an adjuvant treatment for therapy-refractory cancers including glioblastoma, one of the most aggressive human cancers. While there is considerable evidence for the efficacy and safety of chloroquine the mechanisms underlying the tumor suppressive actions of this drug remain elusive. Up until recently, inhibition of the late stage of autophagy was thought to be the major mechanism of chloroquine-mediated cancer cells death. However, recent research provided compelling evidence that autophagy-inhibiting activities of chloroquine are dispensable for its ability to suppress tumor cells growth. These unexpected findings necessitate a further elucidation of the molecular mechanisms that are essential for anti-cancer activities of CHQ. This review discusses the versatile actions of chloroquine in cancer cells with particular focus on glioma cells.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Master 4 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 21 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 23 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,305,338
of 26,596,651 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#525
of 23,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,272
of 348,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#11
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,596,651 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,342 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 348,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.