↓ Skip to main content

Evidence for non-homologous end joining and non-allelic homologous recombination in atypical NF1 microdeletions

Overview of attention for article published in Human Genetics, April 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Evidence for non-homologous end joining and non-allelic homologous recombination in atypical NF1 microdeletions
Published in
Human Genetics, April 2004
DOI 10.1007/s00439-004-1101-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Venturin, Cristina Gervasini, Francesca Orzan, Angela Bentivegna, Lucia Corrado, Patrizia Colapietro, Alessandra Friso, Romano Tenconi, Meena Upadhyaya, Lidia Larizza, Paola Riva

Abstract

NF1 microdeletion syndrome is caused by haploinsufficiency of the NF1 gene and of gene(s) located in adjacent flanking regions. Most of the NF1 deletions originate by non-allelic homologous recombination between repeated sequences (REP-P and -M) mapped to 17q11.2, while the remaining deletions show unusual breakpoints. We performed high-resolution FISH analysis of 18 NF1 microdeleted patients with the aims of mapping non-recurrent deletion breakpoints and verifying the presence of additional recombination-prone architectural motifs. This approach allowed us to obtain the sequence of the first junction fragment of an atypical deletion. By conventional FISH, we identified 16 patients with REP-mediated common deletions, and two patients carrying atypical deletions of 1.3 Mb and 3 Mb. Following fibre-FISH, we identified breakpoint regions of 100 kb, which led to the generation of several locus-specific probes restricting the atypical deletion endpoint intervals to a few kilobases. Sequence analysis provided evidence of small blocks of REPs, clustered around the 1.3-Mb deletion breakpoints, probably involved in intrachromatid non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR), while isolation and sequencing of the 3-Mb deletion junction fragment indicated that a non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) mechanism is implicated.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 27%
Other 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 20%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Unknown 7 23%
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 29 January 2020.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Human Genetics
#1,014
of 2,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,930
of 62,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genetics
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 2,957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 62,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.