↓ Skip to main content

Recessive mutations of TMC1 associated with moderate to severe hearing loss

Overview of attention for article published in neurogenetics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Recessive mutations of TMC1 associated with moderate to severe hearing loss
Published in
neurogenetics, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10048-016-0477-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ayesha Imtiaz, Azra Maqsood, Atteeq U. Rehman, Robert J. Morell, Jeffrey R. Holt, Thomas B. Friedman, Sadaf Naz

Abstract

TMC1 encodes a protein required for the normal function of mechanically activated channels that enable sensory transduction in auditory and vestibular hair cells. TMC1 protein is localized at the tips of the hair cell stereocilia, the site of conventional mechanotransduction. In many populations, loss-of-function recessive mutations of TMC1 are associated with profound deafness across all frequencies tested. In six families reported here, variable moderate-to-severe or moderate-to-profound hearing loss co-segregated with STR (short tandem repeats) markers at the TMC1 locus DFNB7/11. Massively parallel and Sanger sequencing of genomic DNA revealed each family co-segregating hearing loss with a homozygous TMC1 mutation: two reported mutations (p.R34X and p.R389Q) and three novel mutations (p.S596R, p.N199I, and c.1404 + 1G > T). TMC1 cDNA sequence from affected subjects homozygous for the donor splice site transversion c.1404 + 1G > T revealed skipping of exon 16, deleting 60 amino acids from the TMC1 protein. Since the mutations in our study cause less than profound hearing loss, we speculate that there is hypo-functional TMC1 mechanotransduction channel activity and that other even less damaging variants of TMC1 may be associated with more common mild-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss.

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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Unspecified 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 27%
Unspecified 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 10 30%
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 13 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,341,859
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from neurogenetics
#341
of 377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,413
of 297,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from neurogenetics
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 377 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 297,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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.