↓ Skip to main content

Immunohistochemical detection of mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in lung adenocarcinomas using mutation-specific antibodies

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Immunohistochemical detection of mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in lung adenocarcinomas using mutation-specific antibodies
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-1596-8-27
Pubmed ID
Abstract

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The recent development of antibodies specific for the major hotspot mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), L858R and E746_A750del, may provide an opportunity to use immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a screening test for EGFR gene mutations. This study was designed to optimize the IHC protocol and the criteria for interpretation of the results using DNA sequencing as the gold-standard. METHODS: Tumor sections from fifty lung adenocarcinoma specimens from Chinese patients were immunostained using L858R and E746_A750del-specific antibodies using three different antigen retrieval solutions, and the results were evaluated using three different sets of criteria. The same specimens were used for DNA purification and analysis of EGFR gene mutations. RESULTS: In this study the optimal buffer for antigen retrieval was EDTA (pH 8.0), and the optimal scoring method was to call positive results when there was moderate to strong staining of membrane and/or cytoplasm in >10% of the tumor cells. Using the optimized protocol, L858R-specific IHC showed a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 97%, and E746_A750del-specific IHC showed a sensitivity of 59% and a specificity of 100%, both compared with direct DNA analysis. Additionally, the mutant proteins as assessed by IHC showed a more homogeneous than heterogeneous pattern of expression. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that mutation-specific IHC, using optimized procedures, is a reliable prescreening test for detecting EGFR mutations in lung adenocarcinoma. Virtual Slides The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/2059012601872392.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 33%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 February 2013.
All research outputs
#2,696,362
of 3,630,565 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#232
of 393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,280
of 85,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#14
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,630,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 393 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 85,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.