↓ Skip to main content

Unexpected Findings in a Child with Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome: An Example of How Genomics Is Changing the Clinical Diagnostic Paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Unexpected Findings in a Child with Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome: An Example of How Genomics Is Changing the Clinical Diagnostic Paradigm
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fped.2017.00113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleanor G. Seaby, Rodney D. Gilbert, Gaia Andreoletti, Reuben J. Pengelly, Catherine Mercer, David Hunt, Sarah Ennis

Abstract

CBL is a tumor suppressor gene on chromosome 11 encoding a multivalent adaptor protein with E3 ubiquitin ligase activity. Germline CBL mutations are dominant. Pathogenic de novo mutations result in a phenotype that overlaps Noonan syndrome (1). Some patients with CBL mutations go on to develop juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia (JMML), an aggressive malignancy that usually necessitates bone marrow transplantation. Using whole exome sequencing methods, we identified a known mutation in CBL in a 4-year-old Caucasian boy with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, moyamoya phenomenon, and dysmorphology consistent with a mild Noonan-like phenotype. Exome data revealed loss of heterozygosity across chromosome 11q consistent with JMML but in the absence of clinical leukemia. Our finding challenges conventional clinical diagnostics since we have identified a pathogenic variant in the CBL gene previously only ascertained in children presenting with leukemia. The increasing affordability of expansive sequencing is likely to increase the scope of clinical profiles observed for previously identified pathogenic variants and calls into question the interpretability and indications for clinical management.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 21%
Other 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 25%
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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,893,544
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#2,938
of 6,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,186
of 313,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#56
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 313,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.