↓ 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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
24 patents
facebook
4 Facebook pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 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 76 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 22%
Researcher 17 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 6 7%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 7%
Linguistics 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 17 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 20 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,805,873
of 23,371,053 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#100
of 1,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,579
of 110,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,371,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,292 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 110,013 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.