↓ Skip to main content

Opportunism: a panacea for implementation of whole-genome sequencing studies in nutrigenomics research?

Overview of attention for article published in Genes & Nutrition, February 2014
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
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Opportunism: a panacea for implementation of whole-genome sequencing studies in nutrigenomics research?
Published in
Genes & Nutrition, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12263-014-0387-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kourosh R. Ahmadi, Toby Andrew

Abstract

Observational studies have consistently shown associations between mild deficiencies in folate and vitamin B12 with increased risk of a myriad of common diseases. These findings have invariably translated into null outcomes in intervention trials due in part to our ignorance of the specific genomic and environmental factors that underpin population variability in requirements to these B-vitamins. Although genome-wide association studies have shed initial light on the genetic architecture of variability in status of these vitamins, particularly vitamin B12, the causal mechanisms remain uncharacterised. A recent study by Grarup et al. (PLoS Genet 9(6):e1003530, 2013) used next-generation whole-genome sequencing to gain further insight into the genetic architecture of vitamin B12 and folate status in the general population. Their study represents the analysis of approximately ten times greater number of genetic variants and nearly four times the number of individuals compared to the largest previous GWAS study of these B-vitamins. In light of this, we purport that although the study may be viewed as the state of the art in the roadmap to personalised or precision nutrition, the lack of insight provided by the study serves as a cautionary reminder of the importance of study design, particularly when leveraging large-scale data, such as those from whole-genome sequences. We believe that the precedent set by such large-scale "proof of principle" type projects will wrongly enforce a negative outlook for nutrigenomics research and present alternative study designs, which although less opportunistic are far more likely to be informative and yield novel results.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 40%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 15%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 3 15%
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 01 March 2014.
All research outputs
#13,403,925
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Genes & Nutrition
#184
of 388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,408
of 223,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genes & Nutrition
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 223,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.