↓ Skip to main content

LIN28B, LIN28A, KISS1, and KISS1R in idiopathic central precocious puberty

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
LIN28B, LIN28A, KISS1, and KISS1R in idiopathic central precocious puberty
Published in
BMC Research Notes, September 2011
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-4-363
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johanna Tommiska, Kaspar Sørensen, Lise Aksglaede, Rosanna Koivu, Lea Puhakka, Anders Juul, Taneli Raivio

Abstract

Pubertal timing is a strongly heritable trait, but no single puberty gene has been identified. Thus, the genetic background of idiopathic central precocious puberty (ICPP) is poorly understood. Overall, the genetic modulation of pubertal onset most likely arises from the additive effect of multiple genes, but also monogenic causes of ICPP probably exist, as cases of familial ICPP have been reported. Mutations in KISS1 and KISSR, coding for kisspeptin and its receptor, involved in GnRH secretion and puberty onset, have been suggested causative for monogenic ICPP. Variation in LIN28B was associated with timing of puberty in genome-wide association (GWA) studies. LIN28B is a human ortholog of the gene that controls, through microRNAs, developmental timing in C. elegans. In addition, Lin28a transgenic mice manifest the puberty phenotypes identified in the human GWAS. Thus, both LIN28B and LIN28A may have a role in pubertal development and are good candidate genes for monogenic ICPP.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 9 27%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 4 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 July 2013.
All research outputs
#918,853
of 4,505,992 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#248
of 1,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,525
of 64,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,505,992 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,369 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 64,938 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.