↓ Skip to main content

Whole-exome analysis to detect congenital hemolytic anemia mimicking congenital dyserythropoietic anemia

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Hematology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Whole-exome analysis to detect congenital hemolytic anemia mimicking congenital dyserythropoietic anemia
Published in
International Journal of Hematology, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12185-018-2482-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Motoharu Hamada, Sayoko Doisaki, Yusuke Okuno, Hideki Muramatsu, Asahito Hama, Nozomu Kawashima, Atsushi Narita, Nobuhiro Nishio, Kenichi Yoshida, Hitoshi Kanno, Atsushi Manabe, Takashi Taga, Yoshiyuki Takahashi, Satoru Miyano, Seishi Ogawa, Seiji Kojima

Abstract

Congenital dyserythropoietic anemia (CDA) is a heterogeneous group of rare congenital disorders characterized by ineffective erythropoiesis and dysplastic changes in erythroblasts. Diagnosis of CDA is based primarily on the morphology of bone marrow erythroblasts; however, genetic tests have recently become more important. Here, we performed genetic analysis of 10 Japanese patients who had been diagnosed with CDA based on laboratory findings and morphological characteristics. We examined 10 CDA patients via central review of bone marrow morphology and genetic analysis for congenital bone marrow failure syndromes. Sanger sequencing for CDAN1, SEC23B, and KLF1 was performed for all patients. We performed whole-exome sequencing in patients without mutation in these genes. Three patients carried pathogenic CDAN1 mutations, whereas no SEC23B mutations were identified in our cohort. WES unexpectedly identified gene mutations known to cause congenital hemolytic anemia in two patients: canonical G6PD p.Val394Leu mutation and SPTA1 p.Arg28His mutation. Comprehensive genetic analysis is warranted for more effective diagnosis of patients with suspected CDA.

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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 21%
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 36%
Chemistry 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Unknown 7 50%
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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,640,437
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Hematology
#932
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,751
of 328,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Hematology
#9
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,417 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. 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 328,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.