↓ Skip to main content

Reconstructing the molecular life history of gliomas

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Neuropathologica, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
Title
Reconstructing the molecular life history of gliomas
Published in
Acta Neuropathologica, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00401-018-1842-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Floris P. Barthel, Pieter Wesseling, Roel G. W. Verhaak

Abstract

At the time of their clinical manifestation, the heterogeneous group of adult and pediatric gliomas carries a wide range of diverse somatic genomic alterations, ranging from somatic single-nucleotide variants to structural chromosomal rearrangements. Somatic abnormalities may have functional consequences, such as a decrease, increase or change in mRNA transcripts, and cells pay a penalty for maintaining them. These abnormalities, therefore, must provide cells with a competitive advantage to become engrained into the glioma genome. Here, we propose a model of gliomagenesis consisting of the following five consecutive phases that glioma cells have traversed prior to clinical manifestation: (I) initial growth; (II) oncogene-induced senescence; (III) stressed growth; (IV) replicative senescence/crisis; (V) immortal growth. We have integrated the findings from a large number of studies in biology and (neuro)oncology and relate somatic alterations and other results discussed in these papers to each of these five phases. Understanding the story that each glioma tells at presentation may ultimately facilitate the design of novel, more effective therapeutic approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 18%
Student > Master 17 14%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 9 7%
Other 28 23%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 14%
Neuroscience 11 9%
Computer Science 5 4%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 25 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 28 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,664,079
of 25,042,800 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neuropathologica
#315
of 2,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,548
of 334,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neuropathologica
#6
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,042,800 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. 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 334,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.