↓ Skip to main content

Choosing the right cell line for breast cancer research

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
patent
1 patent
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
647 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1977 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Choosing the right cell line for breast cancer research
Published in
Breast Cancer Research, August 2011
DOI 10.1186/bcr2889
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah L Holliday, Valerie Speirs

Abstract

Breast cancer is a complex and heterogeneous disease. Gene expression profiling has contributed significantly to our understanding of this heterogeneity at a molecular level, refining taxonomy based on simple measures such as histological type, tumour grade, lymph node status and the presence of predictive markers like oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) to a more sophisticated classification comprising luminal A, luminal B, basal-like, HER2-positive and normal subgroups. In the laboratory, breast cancer is often modelled using established cell lines. In the present review we discuss some of the issues surrounding the use of breast cancer cell lines as experimental models, in light of these revised clinical classifications, and put forward suggestions for improving their use in translational breast cancer research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 1,977 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 22 1%
United Kingdom 9 <1%
Spain 5 <1%
India 4 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
Chile 3 <1%
Malaysia 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 2 <1%
Other 33 2%
Unknown 1891 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 563 28%
Student > Master 345 17%
Student > Bachelor 305 15%
Researcher 276 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 90 5%
Other 259 13%
Unknown 139 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 676 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 445 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 244 12%
Chemistry 98 5%
Engineering 93 5%
Other 210 11%
Unknown 211 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
#990,881
of 13,615,090 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#117
of 1,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,838
of 251,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,615,090 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,523 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 251,439 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.