↓ Skip to main content

Sequence artefacts in a prospective series of formalin-fixed tumours tested for mutations in hotspot regions by massively parallel sequencing

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
patent
4 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
211 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
259 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
Sequence artefacts in a prospective series of formalin-fixed tumours tested for mutations in hotspot regions by massively parallel sequencing
Published in
BMC Medical Genomics, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1755-8794-7-23
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Q Wong, Jason Li, Angela Y-C Tan, Ravikiran Vedururu, Jia-Min B Pang, Hongdo Do, Jason Ellul, Ken Doig, Anthony Bell, Grant A McArthur, Stephen B Fox, David M Thomas, Andrew Fellowes, John P Parisot, Alexander Dobrovic

Abstract

Clinical specimens undergoing diagnostic molecular pathology testing are fixed in formalin due to the necessity for detailed morphological assessment. However, formalin fixation can cause major issues with molecular testing, as it causes DNA damage such as fragmentation and non-reproducible sequencing artefacts after PCR amplification. In the context of massively parallel sequencing (MPS), distinguishing true low frequency variants from sequencing artefacts remains challenging. The prevalence of formalin-induced DNA damage and its impact on molecular testing and clinical genomics remains poorly understood.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 248 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 56 22%
Student > Master 40 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Other 20 8%
Other 34 13%
Unknown 54 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 80 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 56 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 17%
Engineering 7 3%
Computer Science 6 2%
Other 15 6%
Unknown 50 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 September 2022.
All research outputs
#3,371,908
of 23,330,477 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#156
of 1,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,375
of 228,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,330,477 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 1,253 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 228,309 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 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.