↓ Skip to main content

Personalised Medicine

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 13: Gene Therapy in the Nervous System: Failures and Successes
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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.
Chapter title
Gene Therapy in the Nervous System: Failures and Successes
Chapter number 13
Book title
Personalised Medicine
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60733-7_13
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-960731-3, 978-3-31-960733-7
Authors

Chandran, Jayanth S., Scarrott, Joseph M., Shaw, Pamela J., Azzouz, Mimoun, Jayanth S. Chandran, Joseph M. Scarrott, Pamela J. Shaw, Mimoun Azzouz

Abstract

Genetic disorders, caused by deleterious changes in the DNA sequence away from the normal genomic sequence, affect millions of people worldwide. Gene therapy as a treatment option for patients is an attractive proposition due to its conceptual simplicity. In principle, gene therapy involves correcting the genetic disorder by either restoring a normal functioning copy of a gene or reducing the toxicity arising from a mutated gene. In this way specific genetic function can be restored without altering the expression of other genes and the proteins they encode. The reality however is much more complex, and as a result the vector systems used to deliver gene therapies have by necessity continued to evolve and improve over time with respect to safety profile, efficiency, and long-term expression. In this chapter we examine the current approaches to gene therapy, assess the different gene delivery systems utilized, and highlight the failures and successes of relevant clinical trials. We do not intend for this chapter to be a comprehensive and exhaustive assessment of all clinical trials that have been conducted in the CNS, but instead will focus on specific diseases that have seen successes and failures with different gene therapy vehicles to gauge how preclinical models have informed the design of clinical trials.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 29%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Professor 2 10%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Neuroscience 2 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 24%

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 26 August 2017.
All research outputs
#10,338,379
of 11,657,610 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#2,244
of 3,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,115
of 263,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,657,610 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,095 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 263,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.