| Title |
Monochorionic dizygotic twins with discordant sex and confined blood chimerism
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Pediatrics, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00431-014-2312-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hye Jin Lee, Sung Chul Yoon, Jung Min Ko, Moon Woo Seong, Sung Sup Park, Jin Sun Choi, Sun Kyung Oh |
| Abstract |
Monochorionic (MC) pregnancy in humans is usually considered to be associated only with monozygotic twinning. However, several reports have revealed that dizygotic (DZ) twins can also share a chorion during pregnancy. A chimera is defined as an organism that contains different cells derived from two or more distinct zygotes. As artificial reproductive techniques develop, it can be predicted that the occurrence of MC DZ twins will increase, and DNA-fingerprinting methods, such as short tandem repeat (STR) analysis, will be essential for their accurate diagnosis. We report the first Korean case of MC DZ twins with blood chimerism, 46,XX/46,XY, as a consequence of in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer. The clinical phenotypes of the twins' genitalia were complete female and male, respectively. Monochorionicity was confirmed by pathological analysis of the placenta after delivery. The dizygosity and confined blood chimerism of the twins were confirmed by STR analysis using their peripheral lymphocytes and skin fibroblasts. The confined blood chimerism of the twins can be considered similar to the status of the hematopoietic system in patients after allogenic bone marrow transplantation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 37% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 13% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 September 2015.
All research outputs
#2,352,056
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#332
of 3,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,299
of 226,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#2
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 226,025 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.