↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of the IDH1 codon 132 mutation in brain tumors

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Neuropathologica, November 2008
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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
96 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
884 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
480 Mendeley
Title
Analysis of the IDH1 codon 132 mutation in brain tumors
Published in
Acta Neuropathologica, November 2008
DOI 10.1007/s00401-008-0455-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jörg Balss, Jochen Meyer, Wolf Mueller, Andrey Korshunov, Christian Hartmann, Andreas von Deimling

Abstract

A recent study reported on mutations in the active site of the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1) gene in 12% of glioblastomas. All mutations detected resulted in an amino acid exchange in position 132. We analyzed the genomic region spanning wild type R132 of IDH1 by direct sequencing in 685 brain tumors including 41 pilocytic astrocytomas, 12 subependymal giant cell astrocytomas, 7 pleomorphic xanthoastrocytomas, 93 diffuse astrocytomas, 120 adult glioblastomas, 14 pediatric glioblastomas, 105 oligodendrogliomas, 83 oligoastrocytomas, 31 ependymomas, 58 medulloblastomas, 9 supratentorial primitive neuroectodermal tumors, 17 schwannomas, 72 meningiomas and 23 pituitary adenomas. A total of 221 somatic IDH1 mutations were detected and the highest frequencies occurred in diffuse astrocytomas (68%), oligodendrogliomas (69%), oligoastrocytomas (78%) and secondary glioblastomas (88%). Primary glioblastomas and other entities were characterized by a low frequency or absence of mutations in amino acid position 132 of IDH1. The very high frequency of IDH1 mutations in WHO grade II astrocytic and oligodendroglial gliomas suggests a role in early tumor development.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 480 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 469 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 90 19%
Student > Master 75 16%
Researcher 63 13%
Student > Bachelor 57 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 6%
Other 71 15%
Unknown 93 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 116 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 86 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 81 17%
Neuroscience 29 6%
Chemistry 13 3%
Other 47 10%
Unknown 108 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 09 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,925,295
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neuropathologica
#727
of 2,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,998
of 108,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neuropathologica
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 108,994 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 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.