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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Haploinsufficiency of Flap endonuclease (Fen1) leads to rapid tumor progression
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, July 2002
|
| DOI | 10.1073/pnas.152321699 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melanie Kucherlapati, Kan Yang, Mari Kuraguchi, Jie Zhao, Maria Lia, Joerg Heyer, Michael F. Kane, Kunhua Fan, Robert Russell, Anthony M. C. Brown, Burkhard Kneitz, Winfried Edelmann, Richard D. Kolodner, Martin Lipkin, Raju Kucherlapati |
| Abstract |
Flap endonuclease (Fen1) is required for DNA replication and repair, and defects in the gene encoding Fen1 cause increased accumulation of mutations and genome rearrangements. Because mutations in some genes involved in these processes cause cancer predisposition, we investigated the possibility that Fen1 may function in tumorigenesis of the gastrointestinal tract. Using gene knockout approaches, we introduced a null mutation into murine Fen1. Mice homozygous for the Fen1 mutation were not obtained, suggesting absence of Fen1 expression leads to embryonic lethality. Most Fen1 heterozygous animals appear normal. However, when combined with a mutation in the adenomatous polyposis coli (Apc) gene, double heterozygous animals have increased numbers of adenocarcinomas and decreased survival. The tumors from these mice show microsatellite instability. Because one copy of the Fen1 gene remained intact in tumors, Fen1 haploinsufficiency appears to lead to rapid progression of cancer. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 27% |
| Researcher | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 27% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
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 19 April 2011.
All research outputs
#8,219,054
of 24,622,191 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#64,491
of 101,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,915
of 45,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#318
of 514 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,622,191 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 101,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 45,816 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 514 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.