↓ Skip to main content

A novel independence test for somatic alterations in cancer shows that biology drives mutual exclusivity but chance explains most co-occurrence

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology (Online Edition), December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A novel independence test for somatic alterations in cancer shows that biology drives mutual exclusivity but chance explains most co-occurrence
Published in
Genome Biology (Online Edition), December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13059-016-1114-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sander Canisius, John W. M. Martens, Lodewyk F. A. Wessels

Abstract

In cancer, mutually exclusive or co-occurring somatic alterations across genes can suggest functional interactions. Existing tests for such patterns make the unrealistic assumption of identical gene alteration probabilities across tumors. We present Discrete Independence Statistic Controlling for Observations with Varying Event Rates (DISCOVER), a novel test that is more sensitive than other methods and controls its false positive rate. A pan-cancer analysis using DISCOVER finds no evidence for widespread co-occurrence, and most co-occurrences previously detected do not exceed expectation by chance. Many mutual exclusivities are identified involving well-known genes related to cell cycle and growth factor signaling, as well as lesser known regulators of Hedgehog signaling.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 29%
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 27%
Computer Science 16 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 16%
Engineering 5 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 23 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,068,778
of 16,267,112 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#1,728
of 3,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,396
of 392,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#167
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,267,112 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 392,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 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.