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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Inbreeding and homozygosity in breast cancer survival
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep16467 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hauke Thomsen, Miguel Inacio da Silva Filho, Andrea Woltmann, Robert Johansson, Jorunn E. Eyfjörd, Ute Hamann, Jonas Manjer, Kerstin Enquist-Olsson, Roger Henriksson, Stefan Herms, Per Hoffmann, Bowang Chen, Stefanie Huhn, Kari Hemminki, Per Lenner, Asta Försti |
| Abstract |
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) help to understand the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on breast cancer (BC) progression and survival. We performed multiple analyses on data from a previously conducted GWAS for the influence of individual SNPs, runs of homozygosity (ROHs) and inbreeding on BC survival. (I.) The association of individual SNPs indicated no differences in the proportions of homozygous individuals among short-time survivors (STSs) and long-time survivors (LTSs). (II.) The analysis revealed differences among the populations for the number of ROHs per person and the total and average length of ROHs per person and among LTSs and STSs for the number of ROHs per person. (III.) Common ROHs at particular genomic positions were nominally more frequent among LTSs than in STSs. Common ROHs showed significant evidence for natural selection (iHS, Tajima's D, Fay-Wu's H). Most regions could be linked to genes related to BC progression or treatment. (IV.) Results were supported by a higher level of inbreeding among LTSs. Our results showed that an increased level of homozygosity may result in a preference of individuals during BC treatment. Although common ROHs were short, variants within ROHs might favor survival of BC and may function in a recessive manner. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 27 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 24% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
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 18 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,776,579
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#87,049
of 123,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,856
of 282,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,897
of 2,686 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 282,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,686 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.