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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
PIN3 duplication may be partially responsible for TP53haploinsufficiency
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cancer, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2407-14-669 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marta Winiecka-Klimek, Malgorzata Szybka, Piotr Rieske, Sylwester Piaskowski, Michal Bienkowski, Maciej Walczak, Marcin Pacholczyk, Michal Rostkowski, Jolanta Zieba, Mateusz Banaszczyk, Krystyna Hulas-Bigoszewska, Joanna Peciak, Rafal Pawliczak, Ewelina Stoczynska-Fidelus |
| Abstract |
Previously we have suggested that cancer cells develop a mechanism(s) which allows for either: silencing of the wild-type TP53 transcription, degradation of the wild-type TP53 mRNA, or selective overproduction of the mutated TP53 mRNA, which is the subject of this article. Sequencing of TP53 on the respective cDNA and DNA templates from tumor samples were found to give discordant results. DNA analysis showed a pattern of heterozygous mutations, whereas the analysis of cDNA demonstrated the mutated template only. We hypothesized that different TP53 gene expression levels of each allele may be caused by the polymorphism within intron 3 (PIN3). The aim of this study was to test if one of the polymorphic variants of PIN3 (A1 or A2) in the heterozygotes is associated with a higher TP53 expression, and therefore, responsible for the haploinsufficiency phenomenon. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 21% |
| Researcher | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 14% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
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 26 January 2015.
All research outputs
#15,305,567
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#4,106
of 8,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,104
of 246,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#79
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,277 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 246,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.