↓ Skip to main content

Identification of a loss-of-function inducible degrader of the low-density lipoprotein receptor variant in individuals with low circulating low-density lipoprotein

Overview of attention for article published in European Heart Journal, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
4 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Identification of a loss-of-function inducible degrader of the low-density lipoprotein receptor variant in individuals with low circulating low-density lipoprotein
Published in
European Heart Journal, January 2013
DOI 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs472
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincenzo Sorrentino, Sigrid W. Fouchier, Mohammad M. Motazacker, Jessica K. Nelson, Joep C. Defesche, Geesje M. Dallinga-Thie, John J.P. Kastelein, G. Kees Hovingh, Noam Zelcer

Abstract

Recent genome-wide association studies suggest that IDOL (also known as MYLIP) contributes to variation in circulating levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). IDOL, an E3-ubiquitin ligase, is a recently identified post-transcriptional regulator of LDLR abundance. Briefly, IDOL promotes degradation of the LDLR thereby limiting LDL uptake. Yet the exact role of IDOL in human lipoprotein metabolism is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed at identifying and functionally characterizing IDOL variants in the Dutch population and to assess their contribution to circulating levels of LDL-C.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Professor 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 13%
Unspecified 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,707,778
of 23,549,388 outputs
Outputs from European Heart Journal
#4,102
of 10,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,751
of 289,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Heart Journal
#34
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,549,388 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 289,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.