↓ Skip to main content

Recommended Guidelines for Validation, Quality Control, and Reporting of TP53 Variants in Clinical Practice

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
Title
Recommended Guidelines for Validation, Quality Control, and Reporting of TP53 Variants in Clinical Practice
Published in
Cancer Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1158/0008-5472.can-16-2179
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernard Leroy, Mandy L Ballinger, Fanny Baran-Marszak, Gareth L Bond, Antony Braithwaite, Nicole Concin, Lawrence A Donehower, Wafik S El-Deiry, Pierre Fenaux, Gianluca Gaidano, Anita Langerød, Eva Hellstrom-Lindberg, Richard Iggo, Jacqueline Lehmann-Che, Phuong L Mai, David Malkin, Ute M Moll, Jeffrey N Myers, Kim E Nichols, Sarka Pospisilova, Patricia Ashton-Prolla, Davide Rossi, Sharon A Savage, Louise C Strong, Patricia N Tonin, Robert Zeillinger, Thorsten Zenz, Joseph F Fraumeni, Peter E M Taschner, Pierre Hainaut, Thierry Soussi

Abstract

Accurate assessment of TP53 gene status in sporadic tumors and in the germline of individuals at high risk of cancer due to Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) has important clinical implications for diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy. Genomic data from more than 20,000 cancer genomes provide a wealth of information on cancer gene alterations and have confirmed TP53 as the most commonly mutated gene in human cancer. Analysis of a database of 70,000 TP53 variants reveals that the two newly discovered exons of the gene, exons 9β and 9γ, generated by alternative splicing, are the targets of inactivating mutation events in breast, liver, and head and neck tumors. Furthermore, germline rearrange-ments in intron 1 of TP53 are associated with LFS and are frequently observed in sporadic osteosarcoma. In this context of constantly growing genomic data, we discuss how screening strategies must be improved when assessing TP53 status in clinical samples. Finally, we discuss how TP53 alterations should be described by using accurate nomenclature to avoid confusion in scientific and clinical reports. Cancer Res; 77(6); 1-11. ©2017 AACR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 146 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Master 13 9%
Other 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 41 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 48 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,467,785
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Research
#13,239
of 17,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,115
of 307,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Research
#129
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 307,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.