| Title |
Detection of FOXO1 break-apart status by fluorescence in situ hybridization in atypical alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science China Life Sciences, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11427-017-9082-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Libing Fu, Yaqiong Jin, Chao Jia, Jie Zhang, Jun Tai, Hongbin Li, Feng Chen, Jin Shi, Yongli Guo, Xin Ni, Lejian He |
| Abstract |
The morphologies of alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (ARMS) are various. Some cases entirely lack an alveolar pattern and instead display a histological pattern that overlaps with embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma (ERMS). The method of pathological diagnosis of ARMS and ERMS has been updated in the 4th edition of the World Health Organization's guidelines for classification of skeletal muscle tumors. Under the new guidelines, there is still no molecular test to distinguish between these two subtypes of rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). In the present study, we applied fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and found that the Forkhead box O1 (FOXO1) gene broke apart, amplified, and displayed an aneuploid signal that was related to the RMS pathological subtype. Aside from the fact that FOXO1 break-apart and its amplification were correlated with atypical ARMS, aneuploidies were usually found in atypical ERMS. In conclusion, our results detail a potential biomarker to improve the accuracy of pathological diagnosis by discriminating between atypical ARMS and atypical ERMS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Researcher | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 20% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,429,992
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Science China Life Sciences
#774
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,080
of 291,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science China Life Sciences
#29
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 291,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.