| Title |
CoMEt: a statistical approach to identify combinations of mutually exclusive alterations in cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13059-015-0700-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark DM Leiserson, Hsin-Ta Wu, Fabio Vandin, Benjamin J. Raphael |
| Abstract |
Cancer is a heterogeneous disease with different combinations of genetic alterations driving its development in different individuals. We introduce CoMEt, an algorithm to identify combinations of alterations that exhibit a pattern of mutual exclusivity across individuals, often observed for alterations in the same pathway. CoMEt includes an exact statistical test for mutual exclusivity and techniques to perform simultaneous analysis of multiple sets of mutually exclusive and subtype-specific alterations. We demonstrate that CoMEt outperforms existing approaches on simulated and real data. We apply CoMEt to five different cancer types, identifying both known cancer genes and pathways, and novel putative cancer genes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 18 | 34% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 15% |
| Australia | 3 | 6% |
| Comoros | 2 | 4% |
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| India | 2 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 15 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 26 | 49% |
| Members of the public | 26 | 49% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 152 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 40 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 27 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 44 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 24 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Unknown | 31 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 28 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,151,306
of 25,540,105 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#847
of 4,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,417
of 276,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#20
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,540,105 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 276,117 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.