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 |
Identification of trunk mutations in gastric carcinoma: a case study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Genomics, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12920-017-0285-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhan Zhou, Shanshan Wu, Jun Lai, Yuan Shi, Chixiao Qiu, Zhe Chen, Yufeng Wang, Xun Gu, Jie Zhou, Shuqing Chen |
| Abstract |
Intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) poses an urgent challenge for cancer precision medicine because it can cause drug resistance against cancer target therapy and immunotherapy. The search for trunk mutations that are present in all cancer cells is therefore critical for each patient. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficiency of multiregional sequencing for the identification of trunk mutations present in all regions of a tumor as a case study. We applied multiregional whole-exome sequencing (WES) to investigate the genetic heterogeneity and homogeneity of a case of gastric carcinoma. Approximately 83% of common missense mutations present in two samples and approximately 89% of common missense mutations present in three samples were trunk mutations. Notably, trunk mutations appeared to have higher variant allele frequencies (VAFs) than non-trunk mutations. Our results indicate that small-scale multiregional sampling and subsequent screening of low VAF somatic mutations might be a cost-effective strategy for identifying the majority of trunk mutations in gastric carcinoma. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Montenegro | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 21% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 16% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
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 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,562,247
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#867
of 1,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,896
of 283,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,230 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 283,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.