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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Identification of a set of endogenous reference genes for miRNA expression studies in Parkinson’s disease blood samples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1756-0500-7-715 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alice Serafin, Luisa Foco, Hagen Blankenburg, Anne Picard, Stefano Zanigni, Alessandra Zanon, Peter P Pramstaller, Andrew A Hicks, Christine Schwienbacher |
| Abstract |
Research on microRNAs (miRNAs) is becoming an increasingly attractive field, as these small RNA molecules are involved in several physiological functions and diseases. To date, only few studies have assessed the expression of blood miRNAs related to Parkinson's disease (PD) using microarray and quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). Measuring miRNA expression involves normalization of qRT-PCR data using endogenous reference genes for calibration, but their choice remains a delicate problem with serious impact on the resulting expression levels. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the suitability of a set of commonly used small RNAs as normalizers and to identify which of these miRNAs might be considered reliable reference genes in qRT-PCR expression analyses on PD blood samples. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 67 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 10 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 17% |
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 12 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,380,628
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,013
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,638
of 255,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#89
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 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 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 255,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.