| Title |
Importance of rare gene copy number alterations for personalized tumor characterization and survival analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13059-016-1058-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Seifert, Betty Friedrich, Andreas Beyer |
| Abstract |
It has proven exceedingly difficult to ascertain rare copy number alterations (CNAs) that may have strong effects in individual tumors. We show that a regulatory network inferred from gene expression and gene copy number data of 768 human cancer cell lines can be used to quantify the impact of patient-specific CNAs on survival signature genes. A focused analysis of tumors from six tissues reveals that rare patient-specific gene CNAs often have stronger effects on signature genes than frequent gene CNAs. Further comparison to a related network-based approach shows that the integration of indirectly acting gene CNAs significantly improves the survival analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 29% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 10 | 71% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 26% |
| Researcher | 13 | 25% |
| Professor | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 01 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,120,392
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#1,784
of 4,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,390
of 329,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#33
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 329,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.