↓ Skip to main content

Insights into clonal haematopoiesis from 8,342 mosaic chromosomal alterations

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, July 2018
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 (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
271 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Insights into clonal haematopoiesis from 8,342 mosaic chromosomal alterations
Published in
Nature, July 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41586-018-0321-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Po-Ru Loh, Giulio Genovese, Robert E. Handsaker, Hilary K. Finucane, Yakir A. Reshef, Pier Francesco Palamara, Brenda M. Birmann, Michael E. Talkowski, Samuel F. Bakhoum, Steven A. McCarroll, Alkes L. Price

Abstract

The selective pressures that shape clonal evolution in healthy individuals are largely unknown. Here we investigate 8,342 mosaic chromosomal alterations, from 50 kb to 249 Mb long, that we uncovered in blood-derived DNA from 151,202 UK Biobank participants using phase-based computational techniques (estimated false discovery rate, 6-9%). We found six loci at which inherited variants associated strongly with the acquisition of deletions or loss of heterozygosity in cis. At three such loci (MPL, TM2D3-TARSL2, and FRA10B), we identified a likely causal variant that acted with high penetrance (5-50%). Inherited alleles at one locus appeared to affect the probability of somatic mutation, and at three other loci to be objects of positive or negative clonal selection. Several specific mosaic chromosomal alterations were strongly associated with future haematological malignancies. Our results reveal a multitude of paths towards clonal expansions with a wide range of effects on human health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 271 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 21%
Unspecified 21 14%
Other 12 8%
Student > Master 12 8%
Other 36 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 46 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 17%
Unspecified 24 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Other 17 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 229. 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 08 October 2019.
All research outputs
#56,542
of 13,629,017 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#6,054
of 70,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,574
of 266,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#229
of 876 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,629,017 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 70,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 266,511 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 876 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 73% of its contemporaries.