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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Natural History of Cone Disease in the Murine Model of Leber Congenital Amaurosis Due to CEP290 Mutation: Determining the Timing and Expectation of Therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0092928 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shannon E. Boye, Wei-Chieh Huang, Alejandro J. Roman, Alexander Sumaroka, Sanford L. Boye, Renee C. Ryals, Melani B. Olivares, Qing Ruan, Budd A. Tucker, Edwin M. Stone, Anand Swaroop, Artur V. Cideciyan, William W. Hauswirth, Samuel G. Jacobson |
| Abstract |
Mutations in the CEP290 (cilia-centrosomal protein 290 kDa) gene in Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) cause early onset visual loss but retained cone photoreceptors in the fovea, which is the potential therapeutic target. A cone-only mouse model carrying a Cep290 gene mutation, rd16;Nrl-/-, was engineered to mimic the human disease. In the current study, we determined the natural history of retinal structure and function in this murine model to permit design of pre-clinical proof-of-concept studies and allow progress to be made toward human therapy. Analyses of retinal structure and visual function in CEP290-LCA patients were also performed for comparison with the results in the model. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 44% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 29 August 2023.
All research outputs
#3,338,746
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#43,997
of 202,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,017
of 226,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,099
of 5,398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 226,055 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,398 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.