↓ Skip to main content

Cancer Risk and the ATM Gene: a Continuing Debate

Overview of attention for article published in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, May 2000
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Cancer Risk and the ATM Gene: a Continuing Debate
Published in
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, May 2000
DOI 10.1093/jnci/92.10.795
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kum Kum Khanna

Abstract

Deficiencies in the ability of cells to sense and repair damage in individuals with rare genetic instability syndromes increase the risk of developing cancer. Ataxia-telangiectasia (A-T), such a condition, is associated with a high incidence of leukemia and lymphoma that develop in childhood. Although A-T is an autosomal recessive disorder, some penetrance appears in individuals with one mutated ATM gene (A-T carriers), namely, an increased risk of developing breast cancer. The gene mutated in A-T, designated ATM, is homologous to several DNA damage recognition and cell cycle checkpoint control genes from other organisms. Recent studies suggest that ATM is activated primarily in response to double-strand breaks, the major cytotoxic lesion caused by ionizing radiation, and can directly bind to and phosphorylate c-Abl, p53, and replication protein A (RPA). Analysis of ATM mutations in patients with A-T or with sporadic non-A-T cancers has suggested the existence of two classes of ATM mutation: null mutations leading to A-T and dominant negative missense mutations predisposing to cancer in the heterozygous state. Studies with A-T mouse models have helped determine the basis of lymphoid tumorigenesis in A-T and have shown that ATM plays a critical role in maintaining genetic stability by ensuring high-fidelity execution of chromosomal events. Thus, ATM appears to act as a caretaker of the genome.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Student > Bachelor 12 20%
Student > Postgraduate 7 11%
Researcher 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 16%
Engineering 3 5%
Chemistry 3 5%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 13 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 January 2006.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#4,235
of 7,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,449
of 40,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
#22
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 40,215 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 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.