↓ Skip to main content

Characterization of a non-classical MHC class II gene in the vulnerable Chinese egret (Egretta eulophotes)

Overview of attention for article published in Immunogenetics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Characterization of a non-classical MHC class II gene in the vulnerable Chinese egret (Egretta eulophotes)
Published in
Immunogenetics, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00251-015-0846-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei Lei, Wenzhen Fang, Qingxian Lin, Xiaoping Zhou, Xiaolin Chen

Abstract

Genes of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) are valuable makers of adaptive genetic variation in evolutionary ecology research, yet the non-classical MHC genes remain largely unstudied in wild vertebrates. In this study, we have characterized the non-classical MHC class II gene, Egeu-DAB4, in the vulnerable Chinese egret (Ciconiiformes, Ardeidae, Egretta eulophotes). Gene expression analyses showed that Egeu-DAB4 gene had a restricted tissue expression pattern, being expressed in seven examined tissues including the liver, heart, kidney, esophagus, stomach, gallbladder, and intestine, but not in muscle. With respect to polymorphism, only one allele of exon 2 was obtained from Egeu-DAB4 using asymmetric PCR, indicating that Egeu-DAB4 is genetically monomorphic in exon 2. Comparative analyses showed that Egeu-DAB4 had an unusual sequence, with amino acid differences suggesting that its function may differ from those of classical MHC genes. Egeu-DAB4 gene was only found in 30.56-36.56 % of examined Chinese egret individuals. Phylogenetic analysis showed a closer relationship between Egeu-DAB4 and the DAB2 genes in nine other ardeid species. These new findings provide a foundation for further studies to clarify the immunogenetics of non-classical MHC class II gene in the vulnerable Chinese egret and other ciconiiform birds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 20%
Engineering 1 7%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,276,249
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from Immunogenetics
#1,117
of 1,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,670
of 267,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Immunogenetics
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,203 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 267,796 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.