↓ Skip to main content

Understanding the Pathogenicity of Noncoding Mismatch Repair Gene Promoter Variants in Lynch Syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Human Mutation, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Understanding the Pathogenicity of Noncoding Mismatch Repair Gene Promoter Variants in Lynch Syndrome
Published in
Human Mutation, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/humu.22971
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qing Liu, Bryony A Thompson, Robyn L Ward, Luke B Hesson, Mathew A Sloane

Abstract

Lynch syndrome is the most common familial cancer condition that mainly predisposes to tumors of the colon and endometrium. Cancer susceptibility is caused by the autosomal dominant inheritance of a loss-of-function mutation or epimutation in one of the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Cancer risk assessment is often possible with non-synonymous coding region mutations, but in many cases patients present with DNA sequence changes within non-coding regions, including the promoters, of MMR genes. The pathogenic role of promoter variants, and hence clinical significance, is unclear and this hinders the clinical management of carriers. In this review we provide an overview of the classification of MMR gene variants, outline the laboratory assays and online resources that can be used to assess the causality of promoter variants in Lynch syndrome, and highlight some of the practical challenges of demonstrating the pathogenicity of these variants. In conclusion, we propose a guide that could be integrated into the current InSiGHT classification scheme to help determine if a MMR promoter variant is pathogenic. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Master 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 January 2017.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Human Mutation
#2,198
of 2,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,942
of 315,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Mutation
#28
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,982 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. 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 315,378 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.