↓ Skip to main content

Tissue and exosomal miRNA editing in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Tissue and exosomal miRNA editing in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Published in
Scientific Reports, July 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-28528-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Nigita, Rosario Distefano, Dario Veneziano, Giulia Romano, Mohammad Rahman, Kai Wang, Harvey Pass, Carlo M. Croce, Mario Acunzo, Patrick Nana-Sinkam

Abstract

RNA editing in microRNAs has been recently proposed as a novel biomarker in cancer. Here, we investigated RNA editing by leveraging small-RNA sequencing data from 87 NSCLC (Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer) samples paired with normal lung tissues from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) combined with 26 plasma-derived exosome samples from an independent cohort. Using both the editing levels and microRNA editing expression, we detected deregulated microRNA editing events between NSCLC tumor and normal tissues. Interestingly, and for the first time, we also detected editing sites in the microRNA cargo of circulating exosomes, providing the potential to non-invasively discriminate between normal and tumor samples. Of note, miR-411-5p edited in position 5 was significantly dysregulated in tissues as well as in exosomes of NSCLC patients, suggesting a potential targetome shift relevant to lung cancer biology.

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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 39%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Other 4 17%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 5 22%

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 18 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,798,524
of 14,150,424 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#15,442
of 72,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,076
of 272,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#8
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,150,424 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 72,341 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 272,275 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.