↓ Skip to main content

Epigenetic mechanisms in virus-induced tumorigenesis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epigenetics, March 2011
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
patent
23 patents
facebook
4 Facebook pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Epigenetic mechanisms in virus-induced tumorigenesis
Published in
Clinical Epigenetics, March 2011
DOI 10.1007/s13148-011-0026-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elzbieta Poreba, Justyna Karolina Broniarczyk, Anna Gozdzicka-Jozefiak

Abstract

About 15-20% of human cancers worldwide have viral etiology. Emerging data clearly indicate that several human DNA and RNA viruses, such as human papillomavirus, Epstein-Barr virus, Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and human T-cell lymphotropic virus, contribute to cancer development. Human tumor-associated viruses have evolved multiple molecular mechanisms to disrupt specific cellular pathways to facilitate aberrant replication. Although oncogenic viruses belong to different families, their strategies in human cancer development show many similarities and involve viral-encoded oncoproteins targeting the key cellular proteins that regulate cell growth. Recent studies show that virus and host interactions also occur at the epigenetic level. In this review, we summarize the published information related to the interactions between viral proteins and epigenetic machinery which lead to alterations in the epigenetic landscape of the cell contributing to carcinogenesis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 67 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Other 6 8%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 8%
Linguistics 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 10 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 03 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,268,236
of 19,549,916 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#66
of 1,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,131
of 329,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#3
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,549,916 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 329,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.