↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of ATP13A2 in large neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation (NBIA) and dystonia-parkinsonism cohorts

Overview of attention for article published in Neuroscience Letters, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Analysis of ATP13A2 in large neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation (NBIA) and dystonia-parkinsonism cohorts
Published in
Neuroscience Letters, June 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.06.036
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael C. Kruer, Reema Paudel, Wendy Wagoner, Lynn Sanford, Eleanna Kara, Allison Gregory, Tom Foltynie, Andrew Lees, Kailash Bhatia, John Hardy, Susan J. Hayflick, Henry Houlden

Abstract

Several causative genes have been identified for both dystonia-parkinsonism and neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation (NBIA), yet many patients do not have mutations in any of the known genes. Mutations in the ATP13A2 lead to Kufor Rakeb disease, a form of autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism that also features oromandibular dystonia. More recently, evidence of iron deposition in the caudate and putamen have been reported in patients with ATP13A2 mutations. We set out to determine the frequency of ATP13A2 mutations in cohorts of idiopathic NBIA and dystonia-parkinsonism. We screened for large deletions using whole genome arrays, and sequenced the entire coding region in 92 cases of NBIA and 76 cases of dystonia-parkinsonism. A number of coding and non-coding sequence variants were identified in a heterozygous state, but none were predicted to be pathogenic based on in silico analyses. Our results indicate that ATP13A2 mutations are a rare cause of both NBIA and dystonia-parkinsonism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 17%
Neuroscience 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 December 2012.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Neuroscience Letters
#6,099
of 7,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,693
of 177,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroscience Letters
#28
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 177,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.