↓ Skip to main content

Expanding the clinical phenotype of individuals with a 3-bp in-frame deletion of the NF1 gene (c.2970_2972del): an update of genotype–phenotype correlation

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics in Medicine, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Expanding the clinical phenotype of individuals with a 3-bp in-frame deletion of the NF1 gene (c.2970_2972del): an update of genotype–phenotype correlation
Published in
Genetics in Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41436-018-0269-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magdalena Koczkowska, Tom Callens, Alicia Gomes, Angela Sharp, Yunjia Chen, Alesha D. Hicks, Arthur S. Aylsworth, Amedeo A. Azizi, Donald G. Basel, Gary Bellus, Lynne M. Bird, Maria A. Blazo, Leah W. Burke, Ashley Cannon, Felicity Collins, Colette DeFilippo, Ellen Denayer, Maria C. Digilio, Shelley K. Dills, Laura Dosa, Robert S. Greenwood, Cristin Griffis, Punita Gupta, Rachel K. Hachen, Concepción Hernández-Chico, Sandra Janssens, Kristi J. Jones, Justin T. Jordan, Peter Kannu, Bruce R. Korf, Andrea M. Lewis, Robert H. Listernick, Fortunato Lonardo, Maurice J. Mahoney, Mayra Martinez Ojeda, Marie T. McDonald, Carey McDougall, Nancy Mendelsohn, David T. Miller, Mari Mori, Rianne Oostenbrink, Sebastién Perreault, Mary Ella Pierpont, Carmelo Piscopo, Dinel A. Pond, Linda M. Randolph, Katherine A. Rauen, Surya Rednam, S. Lane Rutledge, Veronica Saletti, G. Bradley Schaefer, Elizabeth K. Schorry, Daryl A. Scott, Andrea Shugar, Elizabeth Siqveland, Lois J. Starr, Ashraf Syed, Pamela L. Trapane, Nicole J. Ullrich, Emily G. Wakefield, Laurence E. Walsh, Michael F. Wangler, Elaine Zackai, Kathleen B. M. Claes, Katharina Wimmer, Rick van Minkelen, Alessandro De Luca, Yolanda Martin, Eric Legius, Ludwine M. Messiaen

Abstract

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is characterized by a highly variable clinical presentation, but almost all NF1-affected adults present with cutaneous and/or subcutaneous neurofibromas. Exceptions are individuals heterozygous for the NF1 in-frame deletion, c.2970_2972del (p.Met992del), associated with a mild phenotype without any externally visible tumors. A total of 135 individuals from 103 unrelated families, all carrying the constitutional NF1 p.Met992del pathogenic variant and clinically assessed using the same standardized phenotypic checklist form, were included in this study. None of the individuals had externally visible plexiform or histopathologically confirmed cutaneous or subcutaneous neurofibromas. We did not identify any complications, such as symptomatic optic pathway gliomas (OPGs) or symptomatic spinal neurofibromas; however, 4.8% of individuals had nonoptic brain tumors, mostly low-grade and asymptomatic, and 38.8% had cognitive impairment/learning disabilities. In an individual with the NF1 constitutional c.2970_2972del and three astrocytomas, we provided proof that all were NF1-associated tumors given loss of heterozygosity at three intragenic NF1 microsatellite markers and c.2970_2972del. We demonstrate that individuals with the NF1 p.Met992del pathogenic variant have a mild NF1 phenotype lacking clinically suspected plexiform, cutaneous, or subcutaneous neurofibromas. However, learning difficulties are clearly part of the phenotypic presentation in these individuals and will require specialized care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Other 8 10%
Student > Master 7 9%
Professor 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 29 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 31 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,154,422
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#349
of 2,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,311
of 346,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#12
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 346,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.