↓ Skip to main content

Replication of reported linkages for dyslexia and spelling and suggestive evidence for novel regions on chromosomes 4 and 17

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Human Genetics, November 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Replication of reported linkages for dyslexia and spelling and suggestive evidence for novel regions on chromosomes 4 and 17
Published in
European Journal of Human Genetics, November 2006
DOI 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201739
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy C Bates, Michelle Luciano, Anne Castles, Max Coltheart, Margaret J Wright, Nicholas G Martin

Abstract

We report the first genome-wide linkage analysis for reading and spelling in a sample of 403 families of twins, aged between 12 and 25 years taken from the normal population and unselected for reading ability. These traits showed heritabilities of 0.52-0.73, and support for linkage exceeded replication levels (lod > 1.44) of seven of the 11 linkages reported in dyslexic samples, namely: 2q22.3, 3p12-q13, 6q11.2, 7q32, 15q21.1, 18p21, and Xq27.3. For five of these (2q22.3, 6q11.2, 7q32, 18p21, and Xq27), this study provides the first independent replication. 1p34-36 and 2p15-16 received some support, with lods of 1.2 and 0.83, respectively, whereas two regions received little support (6p23-21.3 and 11p15.5). This study also identified two novel linkages at 4p15.33-16.1 and 17p13.3, which received suggestive support (max. lod 2.08 and 1.99, respectively).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Researcher 6 14%
Professor 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 28%
Psychology 10 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Linguistics 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 8 19%
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 28 June 2019.
All research outputs
#7,454,298
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Human Genetics
#1,768
of 3,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,428
of 155,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Human Genetics
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 155,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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.