↓ Skip to main content

Folate deficiency causes uracil misincorporation into human DNA and chromosome breakage: Implications for cancer and neuronal damage

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 1997
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 tweeters
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1045 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
268 Mendeley
Title
Folate deficiency causes uracil misincorporation into human DNA and chromosome breakage: Implications for cancer and neuronal damage
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 1997
DOI 10.1073/pnas.94.7.3290
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. C. Blount, M. M. Mack, C. M. Wehr, J. T. MacGregor, R. A. Hiatt, G. Wang, S. N. Wickramasinghe, R. B. Everson, B. N. Ames

Abstract

Folate deficiency causes massive incorporation of uracil into human DNA (4 million per cell) and chromosome breaks. The likely mechanism is the deficient methylation of dUMP to dTMP and subsequent incorporation of uracil into DNA by DNA polymerase. During repair of uracil in DNA, transient nicks are formed; two opposing nicks could lead to chromosome breaks. Both high DNA uracil levels and elevated micronucleus frequency (a measure of chromosome breaks) are reversed by folate administration. A significant proportion of the U.S. population has low folate levels, in the range associated with elevated uracil misincorporation and chromosome breaks. Such breaks could contribute to the increased risk of cancer and cognitive defects associated with folate deficiency in humans.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 268 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 253 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 25%
Student > Master 38 14%
Researcher 36 13%
Student > Bachelor 36 13%
Student > Postgraduate 18 7%
Other 51 19%
Unknown 21 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 99 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 55 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 47 18%
Chemistry 8 3%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 28 10%
Unknown 26 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 July 2019.
All research outputs
#601,073
of 15,295,165 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#10,979
of 84,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,487
of 163,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#225
of 919 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,295,165 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 84,740 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 163,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 919 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.