↓ Skip to main content

Disease insights through cross-species phenotype comparisons

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Disease insights through cross-species phenotype comparisons
Published in
Mammalian Genome, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00335-015-9577-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa A. Haendel, Nicole Vasilevsky, Matthew Brush, Harry S. Hochheiser, Julius Jacobsen, Anika Oellrich, Christopher J. Mungall, Nicole Washington, Sebastian Köhler, Suzanna E. Lewis, Peter N. Robinson, Damian Smedley

Abstract

New sequencing technologies have ushered in a new era for diagnosis and discovery of new causative mutations for rare diseases. However, the sheer numbers of candidate variants that require interpretation in an exome or genomic analysis are still a challenging prospect. A powerful approach is the comparison of the patient's set of phenotypes (phenotypic profile) to known phenotypic profiles caused by mutations in orthologous genes associated with these variants. The most abundant source of relevant data for this task is available through the efforts of the Mouse Genome Informatics group and the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium. In this review, we highlight the challenges in comparing human clinical phenotypes with mouse phenotypes and some of the solutions that have been developed by members of the Monarch Initiative. These tools allow the identification of mouse models for known disease-gene associations that may otherwise have been overlooked as well as candidate genes may be prioritized for novel associations. The culmination of these efforts is the Exomiser software package that allows clinical researchers to analyse patient exomes in the context of variant frequency and predicted pathogenicity as well the phenotypic similarity of the patient to any given candidate orthologous gene.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 7%
Spain 1 2%
India 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 53 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 2 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Computer Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 3 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,161,526
of 24,846,849 outputs
Outputs from Mammalian Genome
#908
of 1,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,431
of 269,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mammalian Genome
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,846,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,155 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 269,648 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.