↓ Skip to main content

Identification of tetragametic human chimerism by routine DNA profiling

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Legal Medicine, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Identification of tetragametic human chimerism by routine DNA profiling
Published in
International Journal of Legal Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00414-018-1914-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jindřich Novotný, Petra Lotz, Stefan Müller, Ortrud Steinlein

Abstract

Chimerism in humans is defined as the presence of two genetically different cell lines within the same organism. It is usually an acquired condition that is restricted to certain tissues and can be explained by therapeutic interventions such as blood transfusion or the transplantation of allogenic hematopoietic cells. Implications of such patients for forensic DNA testing have been described in the literature. In some rare cases, true inherited chimerism is observed. This so called tetragametic chimerism occurs via the fertilization of the two ova by two spermatozoa, followed by the fusion of early embryos and the development of an organism with intermingled cell lines. Such examples have been found in mice and other mammalian species including humans. We describe a phenotypically normal woman in whom tetragametic chimerism (46,XX/46,XX) was unexpectedly identified by STR typing during routine DNA profiling. Cytogenetic analysis proved to be a valuable tool for both independent confirmation and direct visualization of the two coexisting cell lines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Student > Master 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Design 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 30%
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 20 December 2022.
All research outputs
#15,154,259
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#790
of 2,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,899
of 351,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#12
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,325 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 351,756 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.