↓ Skip to main content

The application of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay inhibition to the identification of breast cancer susceptibility genes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
The application of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay inhibition to the identification of breast cancer susceptibility genes
Published in
BMC Cancer, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-12-246
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie K Johnson, Nic Waddell, kConFab Investigators, Georgia Chenevix-Trench

Abstract

Identification of novel, highly penetrant, breast cancer susceptibility genes will require the application of additional strategies beyond that of traditional linkage and candidate gene approaches. Approximately one-third of inherited genetic diseases, including breast cancer susceptibility, are caused by frameshift or nonsense mutations that truncate the protein product 1. Transcripts harbouring premature termination codons are selectively and rapidly degraded by the nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD) pathway. Blocking the NMD pathway in any given cell will stabilise these mutant transcripts, which can then be detected using gene expression microarrays. This technique, known as gene identification by nonsense-mediated mRNA decay inhibition (GINI), has proved successful in identifying sporadic nonsense mutations involved in many different cancer types. However, the approach has not yet been applied to identify germline mutations involved in breast cancer. We therefore attempted to use GINI on lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) from multiple-case, non- BRCA1/2 breast cancer families in order to identify additional high-risk breast cancer susceptibility genes.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 31 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 26%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 2 6%
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 22 December 2012.
All research outputs
#18,323,689
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#5,415
of 8,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,869
of 166,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#57
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,250 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 166,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.