↓ Skip to main content

Monogenic disorders that mimic the phenotype of Rett syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in neurogenetics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Monogenic disorders that mimic the phenotype of Rett syndrome
Published in
neurogenetics, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10048-017-0535-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siddharth Srivastava, Sonal Desai, Julie Cohen, Constance Smith-Hicks, Kristin Barañano, Ali Fatemi, SakkuBai Naidu

Abstract

Rett syndrome (RTT) is caused by mutations in methyl-CpG-binding protein 2 (MECP2), but defects in a handful of other genes (e.g., CDKL5, FOXG1, MEF2C) can lead to presentations that resemble, but do not completely mirror, classical RTT. In this study, we attempted to identify other monogenic disorders that share features with RTT. We performed a retrospective chart review on n = 319 patients who had undergone clinical whole exome sequencing (WES) for further etiological evaluation of neurodevelopmental diagnoses that remained unexplained despite extensive prior workup. From this group, we characterized those who (1) possessed features that were compatible with RTT based on clinical judgment, (2) subsequently underwent MECP2 sequencing and/or MECP2 deletion/duplication analysis with negative results, and (3) ultimately arrived at a diagnosis other than RTT with WES. n = 7 patients had clinical features overlapping RTT with negative MECP2 analysis but positive WES providing a diagnosis. These seven patients collectively possessed pathogenic variants in six different genes: two in KCNB1 and one each in FOXG1, IQSEC2, MEIS2, TCF4, and WDR45. n = 2 (both with KCNB1 variants) fulfilled criteria for atypical RTT. RTT-associated features included the following: loss of hand or language skills (n = 3; IQSEC2, KCNB1 x 2); disrupted sleep (n = 4; KNCB1, MEIS2, TCF4, WDR45); stereotyped hand movements (n = 5; FOXG1, KNCB1 x 2, MEIS2, TCF4); bruxism (n = 3; KCNB1 x 2; TCF4); and hypotonia (n = 7). Clinically based diagnoses can be misleading, evident by the increasing number of genetic conditions associated with features of RTT with negative MECP2 mutations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 21 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 18%
Neuroscience 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 22 32%
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 08 June 2019.
All research outputs
#14,373,275
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from neurogenetics
#252
of 380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,348
of 443,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from neurogenetics
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 380 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 443,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them