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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reassembly of Nucleosomes at the MLH1 Promoter Initiates Resilencing Following Decitabine Exposure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Genetics, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003636 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luke B. Hesson, Vibha Patil, Mathew A. Sloane, Andrea C. Nunez, Jia Liu, John E. Pimanda, Robyn L. Ward |
| Abstract |
Hypomethylating agents reactivate tumor suppressor genes that are epigenetically silenced in cancer. Inevitably these genes are resilenced, leading to drug resistance. Using the MLH1 tumor suppressor gene as a model, we showed that decitabine-induced re-expression was dependent upon demethylation and eviction of promoter nucleosomes. Following decitabine withdrawal, MLH1 was rapidly resilenced despite persistent promoter demethylation. Single molecule analysis at multiple time points showed that gene resilencing was initiated by nucleosome reassembly on demethylated DNA and only then was followed by remethylation and stable silencing. Taken together, these data establish the importance of nucleosome positioning in mediating resilencing of drug-induced gene reactivation and suggest a role for therapeutic targeting of nucleosome assembly as a mechanism to overcome drug resistance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Finland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 23% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 3% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 35% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 18% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 1 | 3% |
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 30 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,740,207
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Genetics
#6,572
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,016
of 209,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Genetics
#113
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 209,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.