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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Common variations in BARD1 influence susceptibility to high-risk neuroblastoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Genetics, May 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ng.374 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mario Capasso, Marcella Devoto, Cuiping Hou, Shahab Asgharzadeh, Joseph T Glessner, Edward F Attiyeh, Yael P Mosse, Cecilia Kim, Sharon J Diskin, Kristina A Cole, Kristopher Bosse, Maura Diamond, Marci Laudenslager, Cynthia Winter, Jonathan P Bradfield, Richard H Scott, Jayanti Jagannathan, Maria Garris, Carmel McConville, Wendy B London, Robert C Seeger, Struan F A Grant, Hongzhe Li, Nazneen Rahman, Eric Rappaport, Hakon Hakonarson, John M Maris |
| Abstract |
We conducted a SNP-based genome-wide association study (GWAS) focused on the high-risk subset of neuroblastoma. As our previous unbiased GWAS showed strong association of common 6p22 SNP alleles with aggressive neuroblastoma, we restricted our analysis here to 397 high-risk cases compared to 2,043 controls. We detected new significant association of six SNPs at 2q35 within the BARD1 locus (P(allelic) = 2.35 x 10(-9)-2.25 x 10(-8)). We confirmed each SNP association in a second series of 189 high-risk cases and 1,178 controls (P(allelic) = 7.90 x 10(-7)-2.77 x 10(-4)). We also tested the two most significant SNPs (rs6435862, rs3768716) in two additional independent high-risk neuroblastoma case series, yielding combined allelic odds ratios of 1.68 each (P = 8.65 x 10(-18) and 2.74 x 10(-16), respectively). We also found significant association with known BARD1 nonsynonymous SNPs. These data show that common variation in BARD1 contributes to the etiology of the aggressive and most clinically relevant subset of human neuroblastoma. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 114 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 18% |
| Researcher | 20 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 19% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 24 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,520,282
of 23,197,711 outputs
Outputs from Nature Genetics
#2,218
of 7,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,361
of 93,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Genetics
#12
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,197,711 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 93,700 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.