↓ Skip to main content

Biological network inferences for a protection mechanism against familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease with E200K pathogenic mutation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Genomics, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Biological network inferences for a protection mechanism against familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease with E200K pathogenic mutation
Published in
BMC Medical Genomics, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1755-8794-7-52
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sol Moe Lee, Myungguen Chung, Kyu Jam Hwang, Young Ran Ju, Jae Wook Hyeon, Jun-Sun Park, Chi-Kyeong Kim, Sangho Choi, Jeongmin Lee, Su Yeon Kim

Abstract

Human prion diseases are caused by abnormal accumulation of misfolded prion protein in the brain tissue. Inherited prion diseases, including familial Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (fCJD), are associated with mutations of the prion protein gene (PRNP). The glutamate (E)-to-lysine (K) substitution at codon 200 (E200K) in PRNP is the most common pathogenic mutation causing fCJD, but the E200K pathogenic mutation alone is regarded insufficient to cause prion diseases; thus, additional unidentified factors are proposed to explain the penetrance of E200K-dependent fCJD. Here, exome differences and biological network analysis between fCJD patients with E200K and healthy individuals, including a non-CJD individual with E200K, were analysed to gain new insights into possible mechanisms for CJD in individuals carrying E200K.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Luxembourg 1 5%
Brazil 1 5%
Unknown 20 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Researcher 4 18%
Other 4 18%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 February 2015.
All research outputs
#3,823,641
of 8,702,492 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#197
of 450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,999
of 186,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,702,492 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 54th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 186,381 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 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.