↓ Skip to main content

CCM molecular screening in a diagnosis context: novel unclassified variants leading to abnormal splicing and importance of large deletions

Overview of attention for article published in neurogenetics, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
CCM molecular screening in a diagnosis context: novel unclassified variants leading to abnormal splicing and importance of large deletions
Published in
neurogenetics, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10048-013-0362-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florence Riant, Michaelle Cecillon, Pascale Saugier-Veber, Elisabeth Tournier-Lasserve

Abstract

Loss of function mutations in CCM1/KRIT1, CCM2/MGC4607, and CCM3/PDCD10 gene are identified in about 95 % of familial cases of cerebral cavernous malformations and 2/3 of sporadic cases with multiple lesions. In this study, 279 consecutive index patients referred for either genetic counseling or for diagnosis of cerebral hemorrhage of unknown etiology were analyzed for the three cerebral cavernous malformations (CCM) genes by direct sequencing and quantitative studies, to characterize in more detail the mutation spectrum associated with cerebral cavernous malformations and to optimize CCM gene screening. Analysis of the cDNA was performed when possible to detect the consequences of the genomic variations. A pathogenic mutation was identified in 122 patients. CCM1 was mutated in 80 patients (65 %), CCM2 in 23 (19 %), and CCM3 in 19 (16 %). One hundred patients harbored a loss of function point mutation (82 %) and 22 had a large deletion (18 %). Novel unclassified variants were detected in the patients among whom six led to a splicing defect. The causality of three missense variants that did not modify the splicing could not be established. These findings expand the CCM mutation spectrum and highlight the importance of screening the three CCM genes with both direct sequencing and a quantitative method. In addition, six new unclassified variants were shown to be deleterious because they led to a splicing defect. This underlines the necessity of the cDNA analysis when an unknown variant is detected.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 15%
Other 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 11 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 April 2013.
All research outputs
#14,168,910
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from neurogenetics
#246
of 375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,659
of 197,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from neurogenetics
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 375 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 197,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.