↓ Skip to main content

Emerging functions of the Fanconi anemia pathway at a glance

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cell Science, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
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
Emerging functions of the Fanconi anemia pathway at a glance
Published in
Journal of Cell Science, August 2017
DOI 10.1242/jcs.204909
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rhea Sumpter, Beth Levine

Abstract

Fanconi anemia (FA) is a rare disease, in which homozygous or compound heterozygous inactivating mutations in any of 21 genes lead to genomic instability, early-onset bone marrow failure and increased cancer risk. The FA pathway is essential for DNA damage response (DDR) to DNA interstrand crosslinks. However, proteins of the FA pathway have additional cytoprotective functions that may be independent of DDR. We have shown that many FA proteins participate in the selective autophagy pathway that is required for the destruction of unwanted intracellular constituents. In this Cell Science at a Glance and the accompanying poster, we briefly review the role of the FA pathway in DDR and recent findings that link proteins of the FA pathway to selective autophagy of viruses and mitochondria. Finally, we discuss how perturbations in FA protein-mediated selective autophagy may contribute to inflammatory as well as genotoxic stress.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 26%
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Master 7 7%
Professor 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 27 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 48 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Linguistics 1 <1%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 30 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,208,166
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cell Science
#2,976
of 9,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,679
of 326,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cell Science
#16
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,021 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 326,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.