↓ Skip to main content

Identification of a New de Novo Mutation Underlying Regressive Episodic Ataxia Type I

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Identification of a New de Novo Mutation Underlying Regressive Episodic Ataxia Type I
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00587
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zeynep S. Karalok, Alfredo Megaro, Marta Cenciarini, Alev Guven, Sonia M. Hasan, Birce D. Taskin, Paola Imbrici, Serdar Ceylaner, Mauro Pessia, Maria C. D'Adamo

Abstract

Episodic ataxia type 1 (EA1), a Shaker-like K+channelopathy, is a consequence of genetic anomalies in the KCNA1 gene that lead to dysfunctions in the voltage-gated K+ channel Kv1. 1. Generally, KCNA1 mutations are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Here we report the clinical phenotype of an EA1 patient characterized by ataxia attacks that decrease in frequency with age, and eventually leading to therapy discontinuation. A new de novo mutation (c.932G>A) that changed a highly conserved glycine residue into an aspartate (p.G311D) was identified by using targeted next-generation sequencing. The conserved glycine is located in the S4-S5 linker, a crucial domain controlling Kv1.1 channel gating. In silico analyses predicted the mutation deleterious. Heterologous expression of the mutant (Kv1.1-G311D) channels resulted in remarkably decreased amplitudes of measured current, confirming the identified variant is pathogenic. Collectively, these findings corroborate the notion that EA1 also results from de novo variants and point out that regardless of the mutation-induced deleterious loss of Kv1.1 channel function the ataxia phenotype may improve spontaneously.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Other 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Student > Postgraduate 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 9%
Unknown 6 55%
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 25 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,273,766
of 23,318,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#5,602
of 12,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,442
of 330,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#128
of 310 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,318,744 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 12,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 330,859 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 310 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.