↓ Skip to main content

Epigenetic Research in Neuropsychiatric Disorders: the “Tissue Issue”

Overview of attention for article published in Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Epigenetic Research in Neuropsychiatric Disorders: the “Tissue Issue”
Published in
Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40473-016-0083-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelly M. Bakulski, Alycia Halladay, Valerie W. Hu, Jonathan Mill, M. Daniele Fallin

Abstract

Evidence has linked neuropsychiatric disorders with epigenetic marks as either a biomarker of disease, biomarker of exposure, or mechanism of disease processes. Neuropsychiatric epidemiologic studies using either target brain tissue or surrogate blood tissue each have methodological challenges and distinct advantages. Brain tissue studies are challenged by small sample sizes of cases and controls, incomplete phenotyping, post-mortem timing, and cellular heterogeneity, but the use of a primary disease relevant tissue is critical. Blood-based studies have access to much larger sample sizes and more replication opportunities, as well as the potential for longitudinal measurements, both prior to onset and during the course of treatments. Yet, blood studies also are challenged by cell-type heterogeneity, and many question the validity of using peripheral tissues as a brain biomarker. Emerging evidence suggests that these limitations to blood-based epigenetic studies are surmountable, but confirmation in target tissue remains important. Epigenetic mechanisms have the potential to help elucidate biology connecting experiential risk factors with neuropsychiatric disease manifestation. Cross-tissue studies as well as advanced epidemiologic methods should be employed to more effectively conduct neuropsychiatric epigenetic research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 15%
Neuroscience 13 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Psychology 8 8%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 26 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 January 2017.
All research outputs
#14,563,786
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports
#79
of 188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,102
of 382,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 382,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.