↓ Skip to main content

Genomic analyses identify molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
2707 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2442 Mendeley
citeulike
13 CiteULike
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
Genomic analyses identify molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer
Published in
Nature, February 2016
DOI 10.1038/nature16965
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Bailey, David K. Chang, Katia Nones, Amber L. Johns, Ann-Marie Patch, Marie-Claude Gingras, David K. Miller, Angelika N. Christ, Tim J. C. Bruxner, Michael C. Quinn, Craig Nourse, L. Charles Murtaugh, Ivon Harliwong, Senel Idrisoglu, Suzanne Manning, Ehsan Nourbakhsh, Shivangi Wani, Lynn Fink, Oliver Holmes, Venessa Chin, Matthew J. Anderson, Stephen Kazakoff, Conrad Leonard, Felicity Newell, Nick Waddell, Scott Wood, Qinying Xu, Peter J. Wilson, Nicole Cloonan, Karin S. Kassahn, Darrin Taylor, Kelly Quek, Alan Robertson, Lorena Pantano, Laura Mincarelli, Luis N. Sanchez, Lisa Evers, Jianmin Wu, Mark Pinese, Mark J. Cowley, Marc D. Jones, Emily K. Colvin, Adnan M. Nagrial, Emily S. Humphrey, Lorraine A. Chantrill, Amanda Mawson, Jeremy Humphris, Angela Chou, Marina Pajic, Christopher J. Scarlett, Andreia V. Pinho, Marc Giry-Laterriere, Ilse Rooman, Jaswinder S. Samra, James G. Kench, Jessica A. Lovell, Neil D. Merrett, Christopher W. Toon, Krishna Epari, Nam Q. Nguyen, Andrew Barbour, Nikolajs Zeps, Kim Moran-Jones, Nigel B. Jamieson, Janet S. Graham, Fraser Duthie, Karin Oien, Jane Hair, Robert Grützmann, Anirban Maitra, Christine A. Iacobuzio-Donahue, Christopher L. Wolfgang, Richard A. Morgan, Rita T. Lawlor, Vincenzo Corbo, Claudio Bassi, Borislav Rusev, Paola Capelli, Roberto Salvia, Giampaolo Tortora, Debabrata Mukhopadhyay, Gloria M. Petersen, Donna M. Munzy, William E. Fisher, Saadia A. Karim, James R. Eshleman, Ralph H. Hruban, Christian Pilarsky, Jennifer P. Morton, Owen J. Sansom, Aldo Scarpa, Elizabeth A. Musgrove, Ulla-Maja Hagbo Bailey, Oliver Hofmann, Robert L. Sutherland, David A. Wheeler, Anthony J. Gill, Richard A. Gibbs, John V. Pearson, Nicola Waddell, Andrew V. Biankin, Sean M. Grimmond

Abstract

Integrated genomic analysis of 456 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas identified 32 recurrently mutated genes that aggregate into 10 pathways: KRAS, TGF-β, WNT, NOTCH, ROBO/SLIT signalling, G1/S transition, SWI-SNF, chromatin modification, DNA repair and RNA processing. Expression analysis defined 4 subtypes: (1) squamous; (2) pancreatic progenitor; (3) immunogenic; and (4) aberrantly differentiated endocrine exocrine (ADEX) that correlate with histopathological characteristics. Squamous tumours are enriched for TP53 and KDM6A mutations, upregulation of the TP63∆N transcriptional network, hypermethylation of pancreatic endodermal cell-fate determining genes and have a poor prognosis. Pancreatic progenitor tumours preferentially express genes involved in early pancreatic development (FOXA2/3, PDX1 and MNX1). ADEX tumours displayed upregulation of genes that regulate networks involved in KRAS activation, exocrine (NR5A2 and RBPJL), and endocrine differentiation (NEUROD1 and NKX2-2). Immunogenic tumours contained upregulated immune networks including pathways involved in acquired immune suppression. These data infer differences in the molecular evolution of pancreatic cancer subtypes and identify opportunities for therapeutic development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 332 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 2,442 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 <1%
United Kingdom 6 <1%
France 4 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
Japan 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Other 9 <1%
Unknown 2398 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 494 20%
Researcher 457 19%
Student > Master 217 9%
Student > Bachelor 208 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 146 6%
Other 378 15%
Unknown 542 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 664 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 443 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 375 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 62 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 58 2%
Other 221 9%
Unknown 619 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 852. 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 15 February 2024.
All research outputs
#21,352
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#2,111
of 98,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#331
of 313,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#50
of 978 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 313,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 978 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.