↓ Skip to main content

Whole-genome landscape of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
262 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
737 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
602 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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
Whole-genome landscape of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours
Published in
Nature, February 2017
DOI 10.1038/nature21063
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aldo Scarpa, David K. Chang, Katia Nones, Vincenzo Corbo, Ann-Marie Patch, Peter Bailey, Rita T. Lawlor, Amber L. Johns, David K. Miller, Andrea Mafficini, Borislav Rusev, Maria Scardoni, Davide Antonello, Stefano Barbi, Katarzyna O. Sikora, Sara Cingarlini, Caterina Vicentini, Skye McKay, Michael C. J. Quinn, Timothy J. C. Bruxner, Angelika N. Christ, Ivon Harliwong, Senel Idrisoglu, Suzanne McLean, Craig Nourse, Ehsan Nourbakhsh, Peter J. Wilson, Matthew J. Anderson, J. Lynn Fink, Felicity Newell, Nick Waddell, Oliver Holmes, Stephen H. Kazakoff, Conrad Leonard, Scott Wood, Qinying Xu, Shivashankar Hiriyur Nagaraj, Eliana Amato, Irene Dalai, Samantha Bersani, Ivana Cataldo, Angelo P. Dei Tos, Paola Capelli, Maria Vittoria Davì, Luca Landoni, Anna Malpaga, Marco Miotto, Vicki L. J. Whitehall, Barbara A. Leggett, Janelle L. Harris, Jonathan Harris, Marc D. Jones, Jeremy Humphris, Lorraine A. Chantrill, Venessa Chin, Adnan M. Nagrial, Marina Pajic, Christopher J. Scarlett, Andreia Pinho, Ilse Rooman, Christopher Toon, Jianmin Wu, Mark Pinese, Mark Cowley, Andrew Barbour, Amanda Mawson, Emily S. Humphrey, Emily K. Colvin, Angela Chou, Jessica A. Lovell, Nigel B. Jamieson, Fraser Duthie, Marie-Claude Gingras, William E. Fisher, Rebecca A. Dagg, Loretta M. S. Lau, Michael Lee, Hilda A. Pickett, Roger R. Reddel, Jaswinder S. Samra, James G. Kench, Neil D. Merrett, Krishna Epari, Nam Q. Nguyen, Nikolajs Zeps, Massimo Falconi, Michele Simbolo, Giovanni Butturini, George Van Buren, Stefano Partelli, Matteo Fassan, Kum Kum Khanna, Anthony J. Gill, David A. Wheeler, Richard A. Gibbs, Elizabeth A. Musgrove, Claudio Bassi, Giampaolo Tortora, Paolo Pederzoli, John V. Pearson, Nicola Waddell, Andrew V. Biankin, Sean M. Grimmond

Abstract

The diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PanNETs) is increasing owing to more sensitive detection methods, and this increase is creating challenges for clinical management. We performed whole-genome sequencing of 102 primary PanNETs and defined the genomic events that characterize their pathogenesis. Here we describe the mutational signatures they harbour, including a deficiency in G:C > T:A base excision repair due to inactivation of MUTYH, which encodes a DNA glycosylase. Clinically sporadic PanNETs contain a larger-than-expected proportion of germline mutations, including previously unreported mutations in the DNA repair genes MUTYH, CHEK2 and BRCA2. Together with mutations in MEN1 and VHL, these mutations occur in 17% of patients. Somatic mutations, including point mutations and gene fusions, were commonly found in genes involved in four main pathways: chromatin remodelling, DNA damage repair, activation of mTOR signalling (including previously undescribed EWSR1 gene fusions), and telomere maintenance. In addition, our gene expression analyses identified a subgroup of tumours associated with hypoxia and HIF signalling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 262 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 602 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 597 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 129 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 86 14%
Student > Master 51 8%
Student > Bachelor 48 8%
Other 39 6%
Other 120 20%
Unknown 129 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 185 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 138 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 81 13%
Computer Science 8 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 <1%
Other 32 5%
Unknown 152 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 201. 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 03 October 2023.
All research outputs
#198,924
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#11,854
of 98,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,684
of 454,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#277
of 907 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98,779 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 454,105 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 907 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 69% of its contemporaries.