↓ Skip to main content

MUTYH Mutations Do Not Cause HNPCC or Late Onset Familial Colorectal Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice, May 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
MUTYH Mutations Do Not Cause HNPCC or Late Onset Familial Colorectal Cancer
Published in
Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice, May 2006
DOI 10.1186/1897-4287-4-2-90
Pubmed ID
Authors

Astrid Stormorken, Karen-Marie Heintz, Per Arne Andresen, Eivind Hovig, Pål Møller

Abstract

Recently, carriers of biallelic mutations in the base excision repair gene MUTYH, have been demonstrated to have a predisposition for multiple adenomas and colorectal cancer. Still, many questions remain unanswered concerning MUTYH. We have addressed the following: Do biallelic MUTYH mutation carriers invariably demonstrate FAP, and may MUTYH be a gene causing HNPCC, HNPCC-like or dominantly inherited late onset colorectal cancer? We examined affecteds from our total series of HNPCC, HNPCC-like and dominantly inherited late onset colorectal cancer kindreds not demonstrated to have any MMR mutations. Bloodsamples from 96 patients were subjected to sequencing of exon 7 and exon 13 in the MUTYH gene. Two heterozygotes and one homozygote for the European founder mutations were found. The homozygous carrier did not meet criteria for FAP/AFAP. We conclude that MUTYH, when mutated, causes a rare recessively inherited disorder including colorectal- and duodenal cancers. It is not verified that heterozygous carriers of MUTYH mutations have an increased risk of cancer, and they do not explain the occurrence of familial colorectal cancer in the population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 29%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Librarian 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 29%
Chemistry 1 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 August 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice
#173
of 260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,508
of 86,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 260 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 86,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.