↓ Skip to main content

Osteogenesis imperfecta without features of type V caused by a mutation in the IFITM5 gene

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bone & Mineral Research, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Osteogenesis imperfecta without features of type V caused by a mutation in the IFITM5 gene
Published in
Journal of Bone & Mineral Research, May 2013
DOI 10.1002/jbmr.1983
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monica Grover, Philippe M Campeau, Caressa Dee Lietman, James T Lu, Richard A Gibbs, Alan E Schlesinger, Brendan H Lee

Abstract

Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is typically caused by mutations in type 1 collagen genes, but in recent years new recessive and dominant forms caused by mutations in a plethora of different genes have been characterized. OI type V is a dominant form caused by the recurrent (c.-14C > T) mutation in the 5'UTR of the IFITM5 gene. The mutation adds five residues to the N-terminus of the IFITM5, but the pathophysiology of the disease remains to be elucidated. Typical clinical features present in the majority of OI type V patients include interosseous membrane calcification between the radius and ulna and between the tibia and fibula, radial head dislocation, and significant hyperplastic callus formation at the site of fractures. We report a 5-year-old child with clinical features of OI type III or severe OI type IV (characteristic facies, gray sclerae, typical fractures) and absence of classical features of OI type V with a de novo recurrent IFITM5 mutation (c.-14C > T), now typical of OI type V. This highlights the variability of OI caused by IFITM5 mutations and suggests screening for mutations in this gene in most cases of OI where type 1 collagen mutations are absent.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 17%
Unspecified 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 19%
Unspecified 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 19%
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 21 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,762,278
of 25,508,813 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bone & Mineral Research
#4,425
of 4,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,066
of 206,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bone & Mineral Research
#58
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,508,813 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 4,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 206,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.