↓ Skip to main content

Identification of 23 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci using the iCOGS custom genotyping array

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Genetics, March 2013
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
361 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
337 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Identification of 23 new prostate cancer susceptibility loci using the iCOGS custom genotyping array
Published in
Nature Genetics, March 2013
DOI 10.1038/ng.2560
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosalind A Eeles, Ali Amin Al Olama, Sara Benlloch, Edward J Saunders, Daniel A Leongamornlert, Malgorzata Tymrakiewicz, Maya Ghoussaini, Craig Luccarini, Joe Dennis, Sarah Jugurnauth-Little, Tokhir Dadaev, David E Neal, Freddie C Hamdy, Jenny L Donovan, Ken Muir, Graham G Giles, Gianluca Severi, Fredrik Wiklund, Henrik Gronberg, Christopher A Haiman, Fredrick Schumacher, Brian E Henderson, Loic Le Marchand, Sara Lindstrom, Peter Kraft, David J Hunter, Susan Gapstur, Stephen J Chanock, Sonja I Berndt, Demetrius Albanes, Gerald Andriole, Johanna Schleutker, Maren Weischer, Federico Canzian, Elio Riboli, Tim J Key, Ruth C Travis, Daniele Campa, Sue A Ingles, Esther M John, Richard B Hayes, Paul D P Pharoah, Nora Pashayan, Kay-Tee Khaw, Janet L Stanford, Elaine A Ostrander, Lisa B Signorello, Stephen N Thibodeau, Dan Schaid, Christiane Maier, Walther Vogel, Adam S Kibel, Cezary Cybulski, Jan Lubinski, Lisa Cannon-Albright, Hermann Brenner, Jong Y Park, Radka Kaneva, Jyotsna Batra, Amanda B Spurdle, Judith A Clements, Manuel R Teixeira, Ed Dicks, Andrew Lee, Alison M Dunning, Caroline Baynes, Don Conroy, Melanie J Maranian, Shahana Ahmed, Koveela Govindasami, Michelle Guy, Rosemary A Wilkinson, Emma J Sawyer, Angela Morgan, David P Dearnaley, Alan Horwich, Robert A Huddart, Vincent S Khoo, Christopher C Parker, Nicholas J Van As, Christopher J Woodhouse, Alan Thompson, Tim Dudderidge, Chris Ogden, Colin S Cooper, Artitaya Lophatananon, Angela Cox, Melissa C Southey, John L Hopper, Dallas R English, Markus Aly, Jan Adolfsson, Jiangfeng Xu, Siqun L Zheng, Meredith Yeager, Rudolf Kaaks, W Ryan Diver, Mia M Gaudet, Mariana C Stern, Roman Corral, Amit D Joshi, Ahva Shahabi, Tiina Wahlfors, Teuvo L J Tammela, Anssi Auvinen, Jarmo Virtamo, Peter Klarskov, Børge G Nordestgaard, M Andreas Røder, Sune F Nielsen, Stig E Bojesen, Afshan Siddiq, Liesel M FitzGerald, Suzanne Kolb, Erika M Kwon, Danielle M Karyadi, William J Blot, Wei Zheng, Qiuyin Cai, Shannon K McDonnell, Antje E Rinckleb, Bettina Drake, Graham Colditz, Dominika Wokolorczyk, Robert A Stephenson, Craig Teerlink, Heiko Muller, Dietrich Rothenbacher, Thomas A Sellers, Hui-Yi Lin, Chavdar Slavov, Vanio Mitev, Felicity Lose, Srilakshmi Srinivasan, Sofia Maia, Paula Paulo, Ethan Lange, Kathleen A Cooney, Antonis C Antoniou, Daniel Vincent, François Bacot, Daniel C Tessier, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, Douglas F Easton

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in males in developed countries. To identify common prostate cancer susceptibility alleles, we genotyped 211,155 SNPs on a custom Illumina array (iCOGS) in blood DNA from 25,074 prostate cancer cases and 24,272 controls from the international PRACTICAL Consortium. Twenty-three new prostate cancer susceptibility loci were identified at genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10(-8)). More than 70 prostate cancer susceptibility loci, explaining ∼30% of the familial risk for this disease, have now been identified. On the basis of combined risks conferred by the new and previously known risk loci, the top 1% of the risk distribution has a 4.7-fold higher risk than the average of the population being profiled. These results will facilitate population risk stratification for clinical studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 337 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 2%
United States 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Lithuania 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 311 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 79 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 19%
Student > Master 35 10%
Other 33 10%
Professor 26 8%
Other 79 23%
Unknown 21 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 102 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 79 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 54 16%
Computer Science 19 6%
Engineering 4 1%
Other 41 12%
Unknown 38 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 155. 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 17 March 2015.
All research outputs
#64,513
of 10,437,279 outputs
Outputs from Nature Genetics
#187
of 5,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#695
of 127,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Genetics
#6
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,437,279 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 5,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 127,161 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 72 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 91% of its contemporaries.