↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the molecular causes of hepatitis B virus vaccination response: an approach with epigenomic and transcriptomic data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Genomics, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Exploring the molecular causes of hepatitis B virus vaccination response: an approach with epigenomic and transcriptomic data
Published in
BMC Medical Genomics, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1755-8794-7-12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Youtao Lu, Yi Cheng, Weili Yan, Christine Nardini

Abstract

Variable responses to the Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) vaccine have recently been reported as strongly dependent on genetic causes. Yet, the details on such mechanisms of action are still unknown. In parallel, altered DNA methylation states have been uncovered as important contributors to a variety of health conditions. However, methodologies for the analysis of such high-throughput data (epigenomic), especially from the computational point of view, still lack of a gold standard, mostly due to the intrinsic statistical distribution of methylomic data i.e. binomial rather than (pseudo-) normal, which characterizes the better known transcriptomic data.We present in this article our contribution to the challenge of epigenomic data analysis with application to the variable response to the Hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine and its most lethal degeneration: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 43 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Student > Master 7 16%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 11%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 8 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 September 2014.
All research outputs
#14,656,207
of 23,573,357 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#578
of 1,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,901
of 222,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,573,357 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 1,264 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 222,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.