↓ Skip to main content

Characteristics of cross-hybridization and cross-alignment of expression in pseudo-xenograft samples by RNA-Seq and microarrays

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Bioinformatics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Characteristics of cross-hybridization and cross-alignment of expression in pseudo-xenograft samples by RNA-Seq and microarrays
Published in
Journal of Clinical Bioinformatics, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/2043-9113-3-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camilo Valdes, Pearl Seo, Nicholas Tsinoremas, Jennifer Clarke

Abstract

Exploring stromal changes associated with tumor growth and development is a growing area of oncologic research. In order to study molecular changes in the stroma it is recommended to separate tumor tissue from stromal tissue. This is relevant to xenograft models where tumors can be small and difficult to separate from host tissue. We introduce a novel definition of cross-alignment/cross-hybridization to compare qualitatively the ability of high-throughput mRNA sequencing, RNA-Seq, and microarrays to detect tumor and stromal expression from mixed 'pseudo-xenograft' samples vis-à-vis genes and pathways in cross-alignment (RNA-Seq) and cross-hybridization (microarrays). Samples consisted of normal mouse lung and human breast cancer cells; these were combined in fixed proportions to create a titration series of 25% steps. Our definition identifies genes in a given species (human or mouse) with undetectable expression in same-species RNA but detectable expression in cross-species RNA. We demonstrate the comparative value of this method and discuss its potential contribution in cancer research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 35%
Researcher 7 30%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 13%
Other 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 43%
Computer Science 5 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 April 2013.
All research outputs
#13,037,505
of 21,298,857 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Bioinformatics
#24
of 63 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,930
of 175,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Bioinformatics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,298,857 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 63 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 175,684 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them