↓ Skip to main content

Genomic structure of nucleotide diversity among Lyon rat models of metabolic syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

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
Genomic structure of nucleotide diversity among Lyon rat models of metabolic syndrome
Published in
BMC Genomics, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-15-197
Pubmed ID
Authors

Man Chun John Ma, Santosh S Atanur, Timothy J Aitman, Anne E Kwitek

Abstract

The metabolic syndrome (MetS), a complex disorder involving hypertension, obesity, dyslipidemia and insulin resistance, is a major risk factor for heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. The Lyon Hypertensive (LH), Lyon Normotensive (LN) and Lyon Low-pressure (LL) rats are inbred strains simultaneously derived from a common outbred Sprague Dawley colony by selection for high, normal, and low blood pressure, respectively. Further studies found that LH is a MetS susceptible strain, while LN is resistant and LL has an intermediate phenotype. Whole genome sequencing determined that, while the strains are phenotypically divergent, they are nearly 98% similar at the nucleotide level. Using the sequence of the three strains, we applied an approach that harnesses the distribution of Observed Strain Differences (OSD), or nucleotide diversity, to distinguish genomic regions of identity-by-descent (IBD) from those with divergent ancestry between the three strains. This information was then used to fine-map QTL identified in a cross between LH and LN rats in order to identify candidate genes causing the phenotypes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 > Master 7 29%
Researcher 6 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Professor 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 3 13%
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 21 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,367,612
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#8,164
of 10,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,815
of 220,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#107
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,636 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 220,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 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.