↓ Skip to main content

The biological basis and clinical significance of hormonal imprinting, an epigenetic process

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epigenetics, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
The biological basis and clinical significance of hormonal imprinting, an epigenetic process
Published in
Clinical Epigenetics, March 2011
DOI 10.1007/s13148-011-0024-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

György Csaba

Abstract

The biological phenomenon, hormonal imprinting, was named and defined by us (Biol Rev, 1980, 55, 47-63) 30 years ago, after many experimental works and observations. Later, similar phenomena were also named to epigenetic imprinting or metabolic imprinting. In the case of hormonal imprinting, the first encounter between a hormone and its developing target cell receptor-usually at the perinatal period-determines the normal receptor-hormone connection for life. However, in this period, molecules similar to the target hormone (members of the same hormone family, synthetic drugs, environmental pollutants, etc), which are also able to bind to the receptor, provoke faulty imprinting also with lifelong-receptorial, behavioral, etc.,-consequences. Faulty hormonal imprinting could also be provoked later in life in continuously dividing cells and in the brain. Faulty hormonal imprinting is a disturbance of gene methylation pattern, which is epigenenetically inherited to the further generations (transgenerational imprinting). The absence of the normal or the presence of false hormonal imprinting predispose to or manifested in different diseases (e.g., malignant tumors, metabolic syndrome) long after the time of imprinting or in the progenies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 26%
Psychology 2 11%
Computer Science 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Other 2 11%

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 October 2014.
All research outputs
#9,974,392
of 13,043,639 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#493
of 623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,890
of 219,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,043,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 219,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.