↓ Skip to main content

Clonal evolution in myelodysplastic syndromes

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, April 2017
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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Clonal evolution in myelodysplastic syndromes
Published in
Nature Communications, April 2017
DOI 10.1038/ncomms15099
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro da Silva-Coelho, Leonie I. Kroeze, Kenichi Yoshida, Theresia N. Koorenhof-Scheele, Ruth Knops, Louis T. van de Locht, Aniek O. de Graaf, Marion Massop, Sarah Sandmann, Martin Dugas, Marian J. Stevens-Kroef, Jaroslav Cermak, Yuichi Shiraishi, Kenichi Chiba, Hiroko Tanaka, Satoru Miyano, Theo de Witte, Nicole M. A. Blijlevens, Petra Muus, Gerwin Huls, Bert A. van der Reijden, Seishi Ogawa, Joop H. Jansen

Abstract

Cancer development is a dynamic process during which the successive accumulation of mutations results in cells with increasingly malignant characteristics. Here, we show the clonal evolution pattern in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients receiving supportive care, with or without lenalidomide (follow-up 2.5-11 years). Whole-exome and targeted deep sequencing at multiple time points during the disease course reveals that both linear and branched evolutionary patterns occur with and without disease-modifying treatment. The application of disease-modifying therapy may create an evolutionary bottleneck after which more complex MDS, but also unrelated clones of haematopoietic cells, may emerge. In addition, subclones that acquired an additional mutation associated with treatment resistance (TP53) or disease progression (NRAS, KRAS) may be detected months before clinical changes become apparent. Monitoring the genetic landscape during the disease may help to guide treatment decisions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 110 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 22%
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 17 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#3,686,570
of 18,468,417 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#24,393
of 36,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,158
of 275,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#761
of 1,098 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,468,417 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36,635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 53.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 275,362 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,098 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.