↓ Skip to main content

Novel clinicopathological and molecular characterization of metanephric adenoma: a study of 28 cases

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Novel clinicopathological and molecular characterization of metanephric adenoma: a study of 28 cases
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13000-018-0732-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ying Ding, Cong Wang, Xuejie Li, Yangyang Jiang, Ping Mei, Wenbin Huang, Guoxin Song, Jinsong Wang, Guoqiang Ping, Ran Hu, Chen Miao, Xiao He, Gang Chen, Hai Li, Yan Zhu, Zhihong Zhang

Abstract

Metanephric adenoma is a rare, benign renal neoplasm with occasional misdiagnosis. However, its molecular characterization is not fully understood. In this study, we use the hybrid capture-based Next-Generation Sequencing to sequence a panel of 295 well-established oncogene or tumor suppressor genes in 28 cases of MA patients in China. Novel clinicopathological markers associated with the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway in metanephric adenoma were detected by immunohistochemistry. It was found that except for BRAF (22/28) mutations (c.1799 T > A, p.V600E), NF1 (6/28), NOTCH1 (5/28), SPEN (5/28), AKT2 (4/28), APC (4/28), ATRX (3/28), and ETV4 (3/28) mutations could also be detected. Meanwhile, a novel and rare gene fusion of STARD9-BRAF, CUX1-BRAF, and LOC100507389-BRAF was detected in one MA patient. In addition, although MEK phosphorylation was normally activated, the phosphorylation level of ERK was low in metanephric adenoma cases. Highly expressed p16 and DUSP6 may have contributed to these results, which maintained MA as a benign renal tumor. This study provides novel molecular and pathological markers for metanephric adenoma, which could improve its diagnosis and increase the understanding of its pathologic mechanism.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 > Master 4 29%
Researcher 3 21%
Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#19,685,740
of 24,208,207 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#782
of 1,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,736
of 305,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,208,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,156 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 305,321 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.