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 |
Diagnosis of 25 genotypes of human papillomaviruses for their physical statuses in cervical precancerous/cancerous lesions: a comparison of E2/E6E7 ratio-based vs. multiple E1-L1/E6E7 ratio-based detection techniques
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-014-0282-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rong Zhang, Yi-feng He, Mo Chen, Chun-mei Chen, Qiu-jing Zhu, Huan Lu, Zhen-hong Wei, Fang Li, Xiao-xin Zhang, Cong-jian Xu, Long Yu |
| Abstract |
BackgroundCervical lesions caused by integrated human papillomavirus (HPV) infection are highly dangerous because they can quickly develop into invasive cancers. However, clinicians are currently hampered by the lack of a quick, convenient and precise technique to detect integrated/mixed infections of various genotypes of HPVs in the cervix. This study aimed to develop a practical tool to determine the physical status of different HPVs and evaluate its clinical significance.MethodsThe target population comprised 1162 women with an HPV infection history of¿>¿six months and an abnormal cervical cytological finding. The multiple E1-L1/E6E7 ratio analysis, a novel technique, was developed based on determining the ratios of E1/E6E7, E2/E6E7, E4E5/E6E7, L2/E6E7 and L1/E6E7 within the viral genome. Any imbalanced ratios indicate integration. Its diagnostic and predictive performances were compared with those of E2/E6E7 ratio analysis. The detection accuracy of both techniques was evaluated using the gold-standard technique ¿detection of integrated papillomavirus sequences¿ (DIPS). To realize a multigenotypic detection goal, a primer and probe library was established.ResultsThe integration rate of a particular genotype of HPV was correlated with its tumorigenic potential and women with higher lesion grades often carried lower viral loads. The E1-L1/E6E7 ratio analysis achieved 92.7% sensitivity and 99.0% specificity in detecting HPV integration, while the E2/E6E7 ratio analysis showed a much lower sensitivity (75.6%) and a similar specificity (99.3%). Interference due to episomal copies was observed in both techniques, leading to false-negative results. However, some positive results of E1-L1/E6E7 ratio analysis were missed by DIPS due to its stochastic detection nature. The E1-L1/E6E7 ratio analysis is more efficient than E2/E6E7 ratio analysis and DIPS in predicting precancerous/cancerous lesions, in which both positive predictive values (36.7%-82.3%) and negative predictive values (75.9%-100%) were highest (based on the results of three rounds of biopsies).ConclusionsThe multiple E1-L1/E6E7 ratio analysis is more sensitive and predictive than E2/E6E7 ratio analysis as a triage test for detecting HPV integration. It can effectively narrow the range of candidates for colposcopic examination and cervical biopsy, thereby lowering the expense of cervical cancer prevention. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 18% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
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 02 October 2014.
All research outputs
#20,238,443
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#3,304
of 3,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,906
of 253,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#59
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,980 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 253,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.