↓ Skip to main content

Review: Diagnosing Common Variable Immunodeficiency Disorder in the Era of Genome Sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
Title
Review: Diagnosing Common Variable Immunodeficiency Disorder in the Era of Genome Sequencing
Published in
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12016-017-8645-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rohan Ameratunga, Klaus Lehnert, See-Tarn Woon, David Gillis, Vanessa L. Bryant, Charlotte A. Slade, Richard Steele

Abstract

Common variable immunodeficiency disorders (CVID) are an enigmatic group of often heritable conditions, which may manifest for the first time in early childhood or as late as the eighth decade of life. In the last 5 years, next generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionised identification of genetic disorders. However, despite the best efforts of researchers around the globe, CVID conditions have been slow to yield their molecular secrets. We have previously described the many clinical advantages of identifying the genetic basis of primary immunodeficiency disorders (PIDs). In a minority of CVID patients, monogenic defects have now been identified. If a causative mutation is identified, these conditions are reclassified as CVID-like disorders. Here we discuss recent advances in the genetics of CVID and discuss how NGS can be optimally deployed to identify the causal mutations responsible for the protean clinical manifestations of these conditions. Diagnostic criteria such as the Ameratunga et al. criteria will continue to play an important role in patient management as well as case selection and sequencing strategy design until the genetic conundrum of CVID is solved.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 11 12%
Other 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 26 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Materials Science 2 2%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 32 36%
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 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#19,495,804
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#590
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,109
of 329,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 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 690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 329,525 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 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.