↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
30 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.
Article details
Title
Screening of deafness-causing DNA variants that are common in patients of European ancestry using a microarray-based approach
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0169219
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The unparalleled heterogeneity in genetic causes of hearing loss along with remarkable differences in prevalence of causative variants among ethnic groups makes single gene tests technically inefficient. Although hundreds of genes have been reported to be associated with nonsyndromic hearing loss (NSHL), GJB2, GJB6, SLC26A4, and mitochondrial (mt) MT-RNR1 and MTTS are the major contributors. In order to provide a faster, more comprehensive and cost effective assay, we constructed a DNA fluidic array, CapitalBioMiamiOtoArray, for the detection of sequence variants in five genes that are common in most populations of European descent. They consist of c.35delG, p.W44C, p.L90P, c.167delT (GJB2); 309kb deletion (GJB6); p.L236P, p.T416P (SLC26A4); and m.1555A>G, m.7444G>A (mtDNA). We have validated our hearing loss array by analyzing a total of 160 DNAs samples. Our results show 100% concordance between the fluidic array biochip-based approach and the established Sanger sequencing method, thus proving its robustness and reliability at a relatively low cost.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Unspecified 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Unspecified 3 10%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#7,012,526
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#83,185
of 195,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,548
of 308,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,767
of 4,539 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 308,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,539 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 59% of its contemporaries.