↓ Skip to main content

Copy number analysis by low coverage whole genome sequencing using ultra low-input DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tumor tissue

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Copy number analysis by low coverage whole genome sequencing using ultra low-input DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tumor tissue
Published in
Genome Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13073-016-0375-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanjina Kader, David L. Goode, Stephen Q. Wong, Jacquie Connaughton, Simone M. Rowley, Lisa Devereux, David Byrne, Stephen B. Fox, Gisela Mir Arnau, Richard W. Tothill, Ian G. Campbell, Kylie L. Gorringe

Abstract

Unlocking clinically translatable genomic information, including copy number alterations (CNA), from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue is challenging due to low yields and degraded DNA. We describe a robust, cost-effective low-coverage whole genome sequencing (LC WGS) method for CNA detection using 5 ng of FFPE-derived DNA. CN profiles using 100 ng or 5 ng input DNA were highly concordant and comparable with molecular inversion probe (MIP) array profiles. LC WGS improved CN profiles of samples that performed poorly using MIP arrays. Our technique enables identification of driver and prognostic CNAs in archival patient samples previously deemed unsuitable for genomic analysis due to DNA limitations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 112 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 17%
Engineering 4 3%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 28 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,143,405
of 23,318,744 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#1,029
of 1,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,079
of 307,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#30
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,318,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 307,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.