↓ Skip to main content

Germline mutations in PMS2 and MLH1 in individuals with solitary loss of PMS2 expression in colorectal carcinomas from the Colon Cancer Family Registry Cohort

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
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.
Title
Germline mutations in PMS2 and MLH1 in individuals with solitary loss of PMS2 expression in colorectal carcinomas from the Colon Cancer Family Registry Cohort
Published in
BMJ Open, February 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010293
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christophe Rosty, Mark Clendenning, Michael D Walsh, Stine V Eriksen, Melissa C Southey, Ingrid M Winship, Finlay A Macrae, Alex Boussioutas, Nicola K Poplawski, Susan Parry, Julie Arnold, Joanne P Young, Graham Casey, Robert W Haile, Steven Gallinger, Loïc Le Marchand, Polly A Newcomb, John D Potter, Melissa DeRycke, Noralane M Lindor, Stephen N Thibodeau, John A Baron, Aung Ko Win, John L Hopper, Mark A Jenkins, Daniel D Buchanan

Abstract

Immunohistochemistry for DNA mismatch repair proteins is used to screen for Lynch syndrome in individuals with colorectal carcinoma (CRC). Although solitary loss of PMS2 expression is indicative of carrying a germline mutation in PMS2, previous studies reported MLH1 mutation in some cases. We determined the prevalence of MLH1 germline mutations in a large cohort of individuals with a CRC demonstrating solitary loss of PMS2 expression. This cohort study included 88 individuals affected with a PMS2-deficient CRC from the Colon Cancer Family Registry Cohort. Germline PMS2 mutation analysis (long-range PCR and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification) was followed by MLH1 mutation testing (Sanger sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification). Of the 66 individuals with complete mutation screening, we identified a pathogenic PMS2 mutation in 49 (74%), a pathogenic MLH1 mutation in 8 (12%) and a MLH1 variant of uncertain clinical significance predicted to be damaging by in silico analysis in 3 (4%); 6 (9%) carried variants likely to have no clinical significance. Missense point mutations accounted for most alterations (83%; 9/11) in MLH1. The MLH1 c.113A> G p.Asn38Ser mutation was found in 2 related individuals. One individual who carried the MLH1 intronic mutation c.677+3A>G p.Gln197Argfs*8 leading to the skipping of exon 8, developed 2 tumours, both of which retained MLH1 expression. A substantial proportion of CRCs with solitary loss of PMS2 expression are associated with a deleterious MLH1 germline mutation supporting the screening for MLH1 in individuals with tumours of this immunophenotype, when no PMS2 mutation has been identified.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Professor 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,713,391
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#12,686
of 25,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,973
of 312,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#257
of 415 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,582 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 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 312,127 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 415 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.