| Title |
Molecular Pathways in Melanomagenesis: What We Learned from Next-Generation Sequencing Approaches
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Oncology Reports, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11912-018-0733-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giuseppe Palmieri, Maria Colombino, Milena Casula, Antonella Manca, Mario Mandalà, Antonio Cossu, for the Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) |
| Abstract |
Conventional clinico-pathological features in melanoma patients should be integrated with new molecular diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic factors coming from the expanding genomic profiles. Cutaneous melanoma (CM), even differing in biological behavior according to sun-exposure levels on the skin areas where it arises, is molecularly heterogeneous. The next-generation sequencing (NGS) approaches are providing data on mutation landscapes in driver genes that may account for distinct pathogenetic mechanisms and pathways. The purpose was to group and classify all somatic driver mutations observed in the main NGS-based studies. Whole exome and whole genome sequencing approaches have provided data on spectrum and distribution of genetic and genomic alterations as well as allowed to discover new cancer genes underlying CM pathogenesis. After evaluating the mutational status in a cohort of 686 CM cases from the most representative NGS studies, three molecular CM subtypes were proposed: BRAFmut, RASmut, and non-BRAFmut/non-RASmut. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 94 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 13% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 22% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 32 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 September 2020.
All research outputs
#6,535,395
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#261
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,932
of 338,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 338,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.