↓ Skip to main content

Evolutionary significance of selected EDAR variants in Tibetan high-altitude adaptations

Overview of attention for article published in Science China Life Sciences, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Evolutionary significance of selected EDAR variants in Tibetan high-altitude adaptations
Published in
Science China Life Sciences, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11427-016-9045-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jianming Shao, Muhammad Sohail Raza, Basang Zhuoma, Changqing Zeng

Abstract

Humans have been exposed to many environmental challenges since their evolutionary origins in Africa and subsequent migrations to the rest of the world. A severe environmental challenge to human migrants was hypoxia caused by low barometric oxygen pressure at high altitudes. Several genome-wide scans have elucidated the genetic basis of human high-altitude adaptations. However, the dearth of functional variant information has led to the successful association of only a few candidate genes. In the present study, we employed a candidate gene approach and re-sequenced the EDAR locus in 45 Tibetan individuals to identify mutations involved in hypoxia adaptation. We identified 10 and five quantitative trait-associated mutations for oxygen saturation (SaO2) and blood platelet count, respectively, at the EDAR locus. Among these, rs10865026 and rs3749110 (associated with SaO2 and platelet count, respectively) were identified as functional candidate targets. These data demonstrate that EDAR has undergone natural selection in recent human history and indicate an important role of EDAR variants in Tibetan high-altitude adaptations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Unknown 6 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Unknown 8 62%
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 07 September 2021.
All research outputs
#14,077,971
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Science China Life Sciences
#391
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,923
of 317,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science China Life Sciences
#6
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 317,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.