↓ Skip to main content

Interpreting the role of de novo protein-coding mutations in neuropsychiatric disease

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Genetics, March 2013
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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Interpreting the role of de novo protein-coding mutations in neuropsychiatric disease
Published in
Nature Genetics, March 2013
DOI 10.1038/ng.2555
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacob Gratten, Peter M Visscher, Bryan J Mowry, Naomi R Wray

Abstract

Pedigree, linkage and association studies are consistent with heritable variation for complex disease due to the segregation of genetic factors in families and in the population. In contrast, de novo mutations make only minor contributions to heritability estimates for complex traits. Nonetheless, some de novo variants are known to be important in disease etiology. The identification of risk-conferring de novo variants will contribute to the discovery of etiologically relevant genes and pathways and may help in genetic counseling. There is considerable interest in the role of such mutations in complex neuropsychiatric disease, largely driven by new genotyping and sequencing technologies. An important role for large de novo copy number variations has been established. Recently, whole-exome sequencing has been used to extend the investigation of de novo variation to point mutations in protein-coding regions. Here, we consider several challenges for the interpretation of such mutations in the context of their role in neuropsychiatric disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 178 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 20%
Student > Master 21 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 18 10%
Professor 12 6%
Other 38 20%
Unknown 16 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 14%
Neuroscience 15 8%
Psychology 13 7%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 22 12%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 April 2017.
All research outputs
#4,493,142
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Nature Genetics
#4,131
of 7,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,429
of 197,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Genetics
#53
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 197,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.