↓ Skip to main content

Challenges in Whole Exome Sequencing: An Example from Hereditary Deafness

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
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
Challenges in Whole Exome Sequencing: An Example from Hereditary Deafness
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0032000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asli Sirmaci, Yvonne J. K. Edwards, Hatice Akay, Mustafa Tekin

Abstract

Whole exome sequencing provides unprecedented opportunities to identify causative DNA variants in rare Mendelian disorders. Finding the responsible mutation via traditional methods in families with hearing loss is difficult due to a high degree of genetic heterogeneity. In this study we combined autozygosity mapping and whole exome sequencing in a family with 3 affected children having nonsyndromic hearing loss born to consanguineous parents. Two novel missense homozygous variants, c.508C>A (p.H170N) in GIPC3 and c.1328C>T (p.T443M) in ZNF57, were identified in the same ∼6 Mb autozygous region on chromosome 19 in affected members of the family. Both variants co-segregated with the phenotype and were absent in 335 ethnicity-matched controls. Biallelic GIPC3 mutations have recently been reported to cause autosomal recessive nonsyndromic sensorineural hearing loss. Thus we conclude that the hearing loss in the family described in this report is caused by a novel missense mutation in GIPC3. Identified variant in GIPC3 had a low read depth, which was initially filtered out during the analysis leaving ZNF57 as the only potential causative gene. This study highlights some of the challenges in the analyses of whole exome data in the bid to establish the true causative variant in Mendelian disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Malaysia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Israel 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 6 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 21%
Computer Science 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 6 7%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 February 2012.
All research outputs
#13,360,185
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#106,357
of 193,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,968
of 156,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,713
of 3,531 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 156,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,531 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.