↓ Skip to main content

Defective Decatenation Checkpoint Function Is a Common Feature of Melanoma

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Investigative Dermatology, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Defective Decatenation Checkpoint Function Is a Common Feature of Melanoma
Published in
Journal of Investigative Dermatology, June 2013
DOI 10.1038/jid.2013.264
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelly Brooks, Kee Ming Chia, Loredana Spoerri, Pamela Mukhopadhyay, Matthew Wigan, Mitchell Stark, Sandra Pavey, Brian Gabrielli

Abstract

A hallmark of cancer is genomic instability that is considered to provide the adaptive capacity of cancers to thrive under conditions in which the normal precursors would not survive. Recent genomic analysis has revealed a very high degree of genomic instability in melanomas, although the mechanism by which this instability arises is not known. Here we report that a high proportion (68%) of melanoma cell lines are either partially (40%) or severely (28%) compromised for the G2 phase decatenation checkpoint that normally functions to ensure that the sister chromatids are able to separate correctly during mitosis. The consequence of this loss of checkpoint function is a severely reduced ability to partition the replicated genome in mitosis and thereby increase genomic instability. We also demonstrate that decatenation is dependent on both TopoIIα and β isoforms. The high incidence of decatenation checkpoint defect is likely to be a major contributor to the high level of genomic instability found in melanomas.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 44%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Unspecified 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Unspecified 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 March 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Investigative Dermatology
#8,107
of 8,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,675
of 209,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Investigative Dermatology
#77
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 209,497 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 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.