↓ Skip to main content

KSHV Latency Locus Cooperates with Myc to Drive Lymphoma in Mice

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Pathogens, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
KSHV Latency Locus Cooperates with Myc to Drive Lymphoma in Mice
Published in
PLoS Pathogens, September 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sang-Hoon Sin, Yongbaek Kim, Anthony Eason, Dirk P. Dittmer

Abstract

Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) has been linked to Kaposi sarcoma and B-cell malignancies. Mechanisms of KSHV-induced oncogenesis remain elusive, however, in part due to lack of reliable in vivo models. Recently, we showed that transgenic mice expressing the KSHV latent genes, including all viral microRNAs, developed splenic B cell hyperplasia with 100% penetrance, but only a fraction converted to B cell lymphomas, suggesting that cooperative oncogenic events were missing. Myc was chosen as a possible candidate, because Myc is deregulated in many B cell lymphomas. We crossed KSHV latency locus transgenic (latency) mice to Cα Myc transgenic (Myc) mice. By itself these Myc transgenic mice develop lymphomas only rarely. In the double transgenic mice (Myc/latency) we observed plasmacytosis, severe extramedullary hematopoiesis in spleen and liver, and increased proliferation of splenocytes. Myc/latency mice developed frank lymphoma at a higher rate than single transgenic latency or Myc mice. These data indicate that the KSHV latency locus cooperates with the deregulated Myc pathways to further lymphoma progression.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 33%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 5 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 8%
Computer Science 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 2 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 September 2015.
All research outputs
#5,128,483
of 10,472,011 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Pathogens
#3,666
of 5,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,626
of 236,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Pathogens
#101
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,472,011 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 50th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 236,007 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.