↓ Skip to main content

Danon disease: a case report and literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, May 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Danon disease: a case report and literature review
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, May 2021
DOI 10.1186/s13000-021-01100-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiamin Xu, Zhu Li, Yihai Liu, Xinlin Zhang, Fengnan Niu, Hongyan Zheng, Lian Wang, Lina Kang, Kun Wang, Biao Xu

Abstract

Danon disease (DD) is a rare x-linked dominant multisystemic disorder with a clinical triad of severe cardiomyopathy, skeletal myopathy, and mental retardation. It is caused by a defect in the lysosomal-associated membrane protein-2 (LAMP2) gene, which leads to the formation of autophagic vacuoles containing glycogen granule deposits in skeletal and cardiac muscle fibers. So far, more than 50 different mutations in LAMP2 have been identified. Here, we report an 18-year-old male patient who was hospitalized for heart failure. Biopsy of the left lateral femoral muscle revealed scattered autophagic vacuoles in the muscle fibers with increased glycogen. Next generation sequencing (NGS) was used to detect gene mutations of the proband sample and a novel frameshift mutation (c.1052delG) has been identified in exon 8 of LAMP2, which leads to truncation of the protein. We found a novel frameshift mutation, a hemizygous mutation (c.1052delG) in exon 8 of LAMP2, identified as presenting the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) phenotype. Genetic analysis is the gold standard for the diagnosis of DD and is essential to determine appropriate treatment strategies and to confirm the genetic risk of family members.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Unknown 9 53%
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 14 May 2021.
All research outputs
#15,685,238
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#551
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#260,065
of 438,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#16
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 438,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.