| Title |
The prognostic implication of SRSF2 mutations in Chinese patients with acute myeloid leukemia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tumor Biology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13277-015-4716-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jing Yang, Dong-ming Yao, Ji-chun Ma, Lei Yang, Hong Guo, Xiang-mei Wen, Gao-fei Xiao, Zhen Qian, Jiang Lin, Jun Qian |
| Abstract |
Recently, somatic mutations in SRSF2 gene have been discovered in a proportion of hematologic malignancies including acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This study was aimed to investigate SRSF2 mutations in Chinese AML patients. High-resolution melting analysis (HRMA) was developed to screen SRSF2 mutations in 249 cases with AML, and then direct DNA sequencing was used to verify the results of HRMA. In this study, 3.6 % (9/249) of Chinese AML patients were found with heterozygous SRSF2 mutations. Patients with SRSF2 mutations were older than those with wild-type SRSF2 (P = 0.014). No differences in the sex, blood parameters, French-American-British classification (FAB) subtypes, and karyotypes were observed between AML patients with and without SRSF2 mutations. Although the overall survival (OS) of SRSF2-mutated patients was inferior to those without mutations in both whole AML patients (median 4 vs. 11 months, respectively; P = 0.006) and cytogenetically normal patients (median 2 vs. 12 months, respectively; P = 0.008), multiple analysis disclosed that SRSF2 mutation was not an independent prognostic factor in AML patients. These results suggest that SRSF2 mutation occurs at a low frequency in aged AML patients and might not be associated with adverse prognosis in Chinese AML patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 22% |
| Professor | 1 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
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 29 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,437,241
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,369
of 2,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,023
of 396,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#86
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,622 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 396,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.