↓ Skip to main content

A promising hypothesis of c-KIT methylation/ expression paradox in c-KIT (+) squamous cell carcinoma of uterine cervix ----- CTCF transcriptional repressor regulates c-KIT proto-oncogene expression

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
A promising hypothesis of c-KIT methylation/ expression paradox in c-KIT (+) squamous cell carcinoma of uterine cervix ----- CTCF transcriptional repressor regulates c-KIT proto-oncogene expression
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13000-015-0438-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shih-Wen Chang, Wan-Ru Chao, Alexandra Ruan, Po-Hui Wang, Jau-Chen Lin, Chih-Ping Han

Abstract

We recently reported one interesting case showing mutation-free c-KIT proto-oncogene overexpression and paradoxical hypermethylation in 54 cases of primary squamous cell carcinoma of uterine cervix (SCC). However, its molecular mechanisms still remain unknown. We propose the hypothesis that increased methylation at the CpG islands on the promoter near the first exon region might interfere with the binding of CTCF repressor with c-KIT promoter that regulates c-KIT proto-oncogene expression in such case. Further studies focusing on the status of epigenetic modifications of mutation-free c-KIT (+) tumors are encouraged.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 33%
Student > Master 3 20%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#531
of 1,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,924
of 393,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#9
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,193 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 393,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.