↓ Skip to main content

Epigenetic and transcriptional determinants of the human breast.

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, February 2015
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
8 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Epigenetic and transcriptional determinants of the human breast.
Published in
Nature Communications, February 2015
DOI 10.1038/ncomms7351
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gascard P, Bilenky M, Sigaroudinia M, Zhao J, Li L, Carles A, Delaney A, Tam A, Kamoh B, Cho S, Griffith M, Chu A, Robertson G, Cheung D, Li I, Heravi-Moussavi A, Moksa M, Mingay M, Hussainkhel A, Davis B, Nagarajan RP, Hong C, Echipare L, O'Geen H, Hangauer MJ, Cheng JB, Neel D, Hu D, McManus MT, Moore R, Mungall A, Ma Y, Plettner P, Ziv E, Wang T, Farnham PJ, Jones SJ, Marra MA, Tlsty TD, Costello JF, Hirst M

Abstract

While significant effort has been dedicated to the characterization of epigenetic changes associated with prenatal differentiation, relatively little is known about the epigenetic changes that accompany post-natal differentiation where fully functional differentiated cell types with limited lifespans arise. Here we sought to address this gap by generating epigenomic and transcriptional profiles from primary human breast cell types isolated from disease-free human subjects. From these data we define a comprehensive human breast transcriptional network, including a set of myoepithelial- and luminal epithelial-specific intronic retention events. Intersection of epigenetic states with RNA expression from distinct breast epithelium lineages demonstrates that mCpG provides a stable record of exonic and intronic usage, whereas H3K36me3 is dynamic. We find a striking asymmetry in epigenomic reprogramming between luminal and myoepithelial cell types, with the genomes of luminal cells harbouring more than twice the number of hypomethylated enhancer elements compared with myoepithelial cells.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 84 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 36%
Researcher 24 24%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 58 59%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 10%
Mathematics 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 6 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#297,190
of 7,999,356 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#4,135
of 12,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,973
of 211,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#207
of 598 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,999,356 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 211,875 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 598 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.