↓ Skip to main content

Revisiting Mendelian disorders through exome sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in Human Genetics, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
195 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
388 Mendeley
citeulike
13 CiteULike
Title
Revisiting Mendelian disorders through exome sequencing
Published in
Human Genetics, February 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00439-011-0964-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chee-Seng Ku, Nasheen Naidoo, Yudi Pawitan

Abstract

Over the past several years, more focus has been placed on dissecting the genetic basis of complex diseases and traits through genome-wide association studies. In contrast, Mendelian disorders have received little attention mainly due to the lack of newer and more powerful methods to study these disorders. Linkage studies have previously been the main tool to elucidate the genetics of Mendelian disorders; however, extremely rare disorders or sporadic cases caused by de novo variants are not amendable to this study design. Exome sequencing has now become technically feasible and more cost-effective due to the recent advances in high-throughput sequence capture methods and next-generation sequencing technologies which have offered new opportunities for Mendelian disorder research. Exome sequencing has been swiftly applied to the discovery of new causal variants and candidate genes for a number of Mendelian disorders such as Kabuki syndrome, Miller syndrome and Fowler syndrome. In addition, de novo variants were also identified for sporadic cases, which would have not been possible without exome sequencing. Although exome sequencing has been proven to be a promising approach to study Mendelian disorders, several shortcomings of this method must be noted, such as the inability to capture regulatory or evolutionary conserved sequences in non-coding regions and the incomplete capturing of all exons.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 3%
United Kingdom 5 1%
Korea, Republic of 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 351 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 22%
Researcher 84 22%
Student > Master 41 11%
Student > Bachelor 40 10%
Student > Postgraduate 27 7%
Other 85 22%
Unknown 26 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 166 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 98 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 55 14%
Computer Science 10 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 1%
Other 22 6%
Unknown 32 8%
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 19 September 2012.
All research outputs
#21,275,730
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Human Genetics
#2,811
of 3,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,282
of 124,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genetics
#13
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 124,143 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.