↓ Skip to main content

In silico analyses reveal common cellular pathways affected by loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events in the lymphomagenesis of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL)

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
In silico analyses reveal common cellular pathways affected by loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events in the lymphomagenesis of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL)
Published in
BMC Genomics, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-15-390
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Aya-Bonilla, Emily Camilleri, Larisa M Haupt, Rod Lea, Maher K Gandhi, Lyn R Griffiths

Abstract

The analysis of cellular networks and pathways involved in oncogenesis has increased our knowledge about the pathogenic mechanisms that underlie tumour biology and has unmasked new molecular targets that may lead to the design of better anti-cancer therapies. Recently, using a high resolution loss of heterozygosity (LOH) analysis, we identified a number of potential tumour suppressor genes (TSGs) within common LOH regions across cases suffering from two of the most common forms of Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), Follicular Lymphoma (FL) and Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL). From these studies LOH of the protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor type J (PTPRJ) gene was identified as a common event in the lymphomagenesis of these B-cell lymphomas. The present study aimed to determine the cellular pathways affected by the inactivation of these TSGs including PTPRJ in FL and DLBCL tumourigenesis.

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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 20%
Other 1 10%
Researcher 1 10%
Student > Postgraduate 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 20%
Psychology 1 10%
Unknown 1 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 January 2015.
All research outputs
#10,319,384
of 18,818,681 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,026
of 9,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,845
of 200,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,818,681 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,635 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 200,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.