↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis of mitochondrial disorders applying massive pyrosequencing

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Biology Reports, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Diagnosis of mitochondrial disorders applying massive pyrosequencing
Published in
Molecular Biology Reports, February 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11033-012-1471-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcelo Andrés Kauffman, Dolores González-Morón, Damián Consalvo, Gastón Westergaard, Martín Vazquez, Estefanía Mancini, Ana Lía Taratuto, Raúl Rey, Silvia Kochen

Abstract

Mitochondrial disorders are a frequent cause of neurological disability affecting children and adults. Traditionally, molecular diagnosis of mitochondrial diseases was mostly accomplished by the use of Sanger sequencing and PCR-RFLP. However, there are particular drawbacks associated with the use of these methods. Recent multidisciplinary advances have led to new sequencing methods that may overcome these limitations. Our goal was to explore the use of a next generation sequencing platform in the molecular diagnosis of mitochondrial diseases reporting our findings in adult patients that present with a clinical-pathological diagnosis of a mitochondrial encephalomyopathy. Complete genomic sequences of mitochondrial DNA were obtained by 454 massive pyrosequencing from blood samples. The analysis of these sequences allowed us to identify two diagnostic pathogenic mutations and 74 homoplasmic polymorphisms, useful for obtaining high-resolution mitochondrial haplogroups. In summary, molecular diagnosis of mitochondrial disorders could be efficiently done from readily accessible samples, such as blood, with the use of a new sequencing platform.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 2 5%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 24%
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 05 March 2012.
All research outputs
#16,639,497
of 24,479,790 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Biology Reports
#1,236
of 3,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,919
of 256,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Biology Reports
#24
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,479,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,134 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 256,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.