↓ Skip to main content

Genotype and phenotype analysis of Taiwanese patients with osteogenesis imperfecta

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Genotype and phenotype analysis of Taiwanese patients with osteogenesis imperfecta
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13023-015-0370-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hsiang-Yu Lin, Chih-Kuang Chuang, Yi-Ning Su, Ming-Ren Chen, Hui-Chin Chiu, Dau-Ming Niu, Shuan-Pei Lin

Abstract

Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a congenital disorder characterized by increased bone fragility and low bone mass. The presence of COL1A1 or COL1A2 mutation was investigated by direct sequencing in 72 patients with OI type I, III, or IV (27 males and 45 females; age range 0.2-62 years) from 37 unrelated families. The clinical features of these patients were also recorded. Thirty-seven COL1A1 and COL1A2 mutations were identified, including 28 COL1A1 mutations and 9 COL1A2 mutations. Fifteen (41 %) were novel mutations, and twelve (32 %) were familial mutations. A review of their medical records revealed that the 72 patients could be classified into OI type I (n = 42), III (n = 5), and IV (n = 25). Twenty-nine patients had helical mutations (caused by the substitution of a glycine within the Gly-X-Y triplet domain of the triple helix), and 42 had haploinsufficiency mutations (caused by frameshift, nonsense, and splice-site mutations). Compared with haploinsufficiency, the patients with helical mutations had more severely impaired skeletal phenotypes, including shorter height, lower bone mineral density, poorer walking ability, more frequent manifestations of dentinogenesis imperfecta and scoliosis (p < 0.05). Genotype and phenotype databases are expected to promote better genetic counseling and medical care of patients with OI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 December 2015.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#2,289
of 3,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,110
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#36
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 395,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.