↓ Skip to main content

Mitochondrial DNA replication and disease: insights from DNA polymerase γ mutations

Overview of attention for article published in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
Title
Mitochondrial DNA replication and disease: insights from DNA polymerase γ mutations
Published in
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, October 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00018-010-0530-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey D. Stumpf, William C. Copeland

Abstract

DNA polymerase γ (pol γ), encoded by POLG, is responsible for replicating human mitochondrial DNA. About 150 mutations in the human POLG have been identified in patients with mitochondrial diseases such as Alpers syndrome, progressive external ophthalmoplegia, and ataxia-neuropathy syndromes. Because many of the mutations are described in single citations with no genotypic family history, it is important to ascertain which mutations cause or contribute to mitochondrial disease. The vast majority of data about POLG mutations has been generated from biochemical characterizations of recombinant pol γ. However, recently, the study of mitochondrial dysfunction in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and mouse models provides important in vivo evidence for the role of POLG mutations in disease. Also, the published 3D-structure of the human pol γ assists in explaining some of the biochemical and genetic properties of the mutants. This review summarizes the current evidence that identifies and explains disease-causing POLG mutations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Slovakia 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 195 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 25%
Researcher 47 23%
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Professor 10 5%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 24 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 79 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 45 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 10%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 19 9%
Unknown 29 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,460,684
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#571
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,948
of 101,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#2
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 101,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.