↓ Skip to main content

Genetic approaches to human renal agenesis/hypoplasia and dysplasia

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Nephrology, April 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Genetic approaches to human renal agenesis/hypoplasia and dysplasia
Published in
Pediatric Nephrology, April 2007
DOI 10.1007/s00467-007-0479-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simone Sanna-Cherchi, Gianluca Caridi, Patricia L. Weng, Francesco Scolari, Francesco Perfumo, Ali G. Gharavi, Gian Marco Ghiggeri

Abstract

Congenital abnormalities of the kidney and urinary tract are frequently observed in children and represent a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. These conditions are phenotypically variable, often affecting several segments of the urinary tract simultaneously, making clinical classification and diagnosis difficult. Renal agenesis/hypoplasia and dysplasia account for a significant portion of these anomalies, and a genetic contribution to its cause is being increasingly recognized. Nevertheless, overlap between diseases and challenges in clinical diagnosis complicate studies attempting to discover new genes underlying this anomaly. Most of the insights in kidney development derive from studies in mouse models or from rare, syndromic forms of human developmental disorders of the kidney and urinary tract. The genes implicated have been shown to regulate the reciprocal induction between the ureteric bud and the metanephric mesenchyme. Strategies to find genes causing renal agenesis/hypoplasia and dysplasia vary depending on the characteristics of the study population available. The approaches range from candidate gene association or resequencing studies to traditional linkage studies, using outbred pedigrees or genetic isolates, to search for structural variation in the genome. Each of these strategies has advantages and pitfalls and some have led to significant discoveries in human disease. However, renal agenesis/hypoplasia and dysplasia still represents a challenge, both for the clinicians who attempt a precise diagnosis and for the geneticist who tries to unravel the genetic basis, and a better classification requires molecular definition to be retrospectively improved. The goal appears to be feasible with the large multicentric collaborative groups that share the same objectives and resources.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Unknown 85 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Master 10 11%
Other 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 22 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 July 2019.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Nephrology
#1,857
of 4,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,229
of 87,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Nephrology
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 87,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.