↓ Skip to main content

Complexities of X chromosome inactivation status in female human induced pluripotent stem cells—a brief review and scientific update for autism research

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, June 2016
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
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Complexities of X chromosome inactivation status in female human induced pluripotent stem cells—a brief review and scientific update for autism research
Published in
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s11689-016-9155-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary G. Dandulakis, Kesavan Meganathan, Kristen L. Kroll, Azad Bonni, John N. Constantino

Abstract

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) allow researchers to make customized patient-derived cell lines by reprogramming noninvasively retrieved somatic cells. These cell lines have the potential to faithfully represent an individual's genetic background; therefore, in the absence of available human brain tissue from a living patient, these models have a significant advantage relative to other models of neurodevelopmental disease. When using human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) to model X-linked developmental disorders or inherited conditions that undergo sex-specific modulation of penetrance (e.g., autism spectrum disorders), there are significant complexities in the course and status of X chromosome inactivation (XCI) that are crucial to consider in establishing the validity of cellular models. There are major gaps and inconsistencies in the existing literature regarding XCI status during the derivation and maintenance of hiPSCs and their differentiation into neurons. Here, we briefly describe the importance of the problem, review the findings and inconsistencies of the existing literature, delineate options for specifying XCI status in clonal populations, and develop recommendations for future studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 23%
Student > Bachelor 19 19%
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 18%
Neuroscience 15 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 13 13%
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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#13,983,915
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
#332
of 477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,668
of 343,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 343,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.