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
| Title |
Asymmetric segregation of template DNA strands in basal-like human breast cancer cell lines
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Molecular Cancer, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1476-4598-12-139 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wenyu Liu, Gajan Jeganathan, Sohrab Amiri, Katherine M Morgan, Bríd M Ryan, Sharon R Pine |
| Abstract |
Stem or progenitor cells from healthy tissues have the capacity to co-segregate their template DNA strands during mitosis. Here, we set out to test whether breast cancer cell lines also possess the ability to asymmetrically segregate their template DNA strands via non-random chromosome co-segregation, and whether this ability correlates with certain properties attributed to breast cancer stem cells (CSCs). We quantified the frequency of asymmetric segregation of template DNA strands in 12 human breast cancer cell lines, and correlated the frequency to molecular subtype, CD44+/CD24-/lo phenotype, and invasion/migration ability. We tested if co-culture with human mesenchymal stem cells, which are known to increase self-renewal, can alter the frequency of asymmetric segregation of template DNA in breast cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 24 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 31% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 November 2013.
All research outputs
#3,611,654
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Cancer
#237
of 1,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,685
of 211,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Cancer
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,716 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 211,390 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.