↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the types of candidate reference samples for quality control of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status detection

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Comparison of the types of candidate reference samples for quality control of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status detection
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13000-016-0537-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yulong Li, Rui Zhang, Yanxi Han, Tian Lu, Jiansheng Ding, Kuo Zhang, Guigao Lin, Jiehong Xie, Jinming Li

Abstract

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) is as a target gene for trastuzumab in patients with breast cancer. Accurate determination of HER2 status and strict quality control are necessary to ensure reproducibility and accuracy of the techniques used for the determination of HER2 status. We used three different types of samples: formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples prepared from cell lines, agarose gel samples using cell lines, and xenograft tumor samples. One cell line for FFPE or xenografts did not overexpress HER2, while the others showed different levels of HER2 overexpression. We compared the morphology, HER2 gene amplification status, and HER2 protein expression status of these samples with those of clinical specimens. We successfully produced three kinds of samples for quality control. Cells from the cell line-sample sections were dispersed while those from the agarose gel-sample sections and xenograft tumor sample sections (prepared from the both cell lines) were concentrated in one area. The FISH results for all three kinds of samples were as expected. The IHC results of the cell line samples and xenograft tumor samples were as expected, but the staining level of the agarose gel samples, using HER2-overexpressed cell lines was weak which might be regarded as a false negative result. Xenograft tumor samples might be used as an additional option for quality control in FISH and IHC. However, it might not replace the clinical specimen quality controls directly.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 30%
Other 3 30%
Researcher 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 20%
Chemistry 1 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#1,007
of 1,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,675
of 335,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#14
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 1,193 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. 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 335,135 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 20 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.