↓ Skip to main content

Novel VPS13A Gene Mutations Identified in Patients Diagnosed with Chorea-acanthocytosis (ChAc): Case Presentation and Literature Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Novel VPS13A Gene Mutations Identified in Patients Diagnosed with Chorea-acanthocytosis (ChAc): Case Presentation and Literature Review
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00095
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Shen, Xiaoming Liu, Xi Long, Chao Han, Fang Wan, Wenliang Fan, Xingfang Guo, Kai Ma, Shiyi Guo, Luxi Wang, Yun Xia, Ling Liu, Jinsha Huang, Zhicheng Lin, Nian Xiong, Tao Wang

Abstract

Chorea-acanthocytosis (ChAc) is a rare autosomal recessive inherited syndrome characterized by hyperkinetic movements, seizures, cognitive impairment, neuropsychiatric symptoms, elevated serum biochemical indicators and acanthocytes detection in peripheral blood smear. Vacuolar protein sorting 13A (VPS13A) gene mutations have been proven to be genetically responsible for the pathogenesis of ChAc. Herein, based on the typical clinical symptoms and neuroimaging features, we present two suspected ChAc cases which are further genetically confirmed by four novel VPS13A gene mutations. Nevertheless, the sharp contrast between the population base and published ChAc reports implies that ChAc is considerably underdiagnosed in China. Therefore, we conclude several suggestive features and propose a diagnostic path of ChAc from a clinical, genetic and neuroimaging perspective, aiming to facilitate the diagnosis and management of ChAc in China.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 6 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 24%
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 28 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,931,166
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,371
of 4,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,668
of 310,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#96
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 310,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.