↓ Skip to main content

U7 snRNAs induce correction of mutated dystrophin pre-mRNA by exon skipping

Overview of attention for article published in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, March 2003
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
4 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
U7 snRNAs induce correction of mutated dystrophin pre-mRNA by exon skipping
Published in
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, March 2003
DOI 10.1007/s000180300047
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Brun, D. Suter, C. Pauli, P. Dunant, H. Lochmüller, J.-M. Burgunder, D. Schümperli, J. Weis

Abstract

Most cases of Duchenne muscular dystrophy are caused by dystrophin gene mutations that disrupt the mRNA reading frame. Artificial exclusion (skipping) of a single exon would often restore the reading frame, giving rise to a shorter, but still functional dystrophin protein. Here, we analyzed the ability of antisense U7 small nuclear (sn)RNA derivatives to alter dystrophin pre-mRNA splicing. As a proof of principle, we first targeted the splice sites flanking exon 23 of dystrophin pre-mRNA in the wild-type muscle cell line C2C12 and showed precise exon 23 skipping. The same strategy was then successfully adapted to dystrophic immortalized mdx muscle cells where exon-23-skipped dystrophin mRNA rescued dystrophin protein synthesis. Moreover, we observed a stimulation of antisense U7 snRNA expression by the murine muscle creatine kinase enhancer. These results demonstrate that alteration of dystrophin pre-mRNA splicing could correct dystrophin gene mutations by expression of specific U7 snRNA constructs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Other 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 18 41%
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 02 June 2022.
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
#5,093
of 50,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#2
of 15 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 50,652 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 85% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.