↓ Skip to main content

TGFBR3 variation is not a common cause of Marfan-like syndrome and Loeys-Dietz-like syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
TGFBR3 variation is not a common cause of Marfan-like syndrome and Loeys-Dietz-like syndrome
Published in
Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1477-5751-11-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krishna K Singh, Joerg Schmidtke, Britta Keyser, Mine Arslan-Kirchner

Abstract

Marfan syndrome (MFS) is caused by mutations in the fibrillin-1 (FBN1) gene, and mutations in FBN1 are known to be responsible for over 90% of all MFS cases. Locus heterogeneity has also been reported and confirmed, with mutations in the receptor genes TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 identified in association with MFS-related phenotypes. It is now known that dysregulation of TGF-ß signaling is involved in MFS pathogenesis. To test the hypothesis that dysregulation of TGFBR3-associated TGF-ß signaling is implicated in MFS or related phenotype pathogenesis, we selected a cohort of 49 patients, fulfilling or nearly fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for MFS. The patients were known not to carry a mutation in the FBN1 gene (including three 5' upstream alternatively spliced exons), the TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 genes. Mutation screening for the TGFBR3 gene in these patients and in controls led to the identification of a total of ten exonic (one novel), four intronic (one novel) and one 3'UTR variant in the TGFBR3 gene. Our data suggest that variations in TGFBR3 gene appear not to be associated with MFS or related phenotype.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 2 9%
Professor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Unknown 9 39%
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 27 February 2012.
All research outputs
#18,304,874
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#82
of 112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,022
of 247,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 247,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.