↓ Skip to main content

Screening for known mutations in EIF2Bgenes in a large panel of patients with premature ovarian failure

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, October 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Screening for known mutations in EIF2Bgenes in a large panel of patients with premature ovarian failure
Published in
BMC Women's Health, October 2004
DOI 10.1186/1472-6874-4-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Fogli, Fernande Gauthier-Barichard, Raphael Schiffmann, Vien H Vanderhoof, Vladimir K Bakalov, Lawrence M Nelson, Odile Boespflug-Tanguy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Premature Ovarian Failure (POF), defined as the development of hypergonadotropic amenorrhea before the age of 40 years, occurs in about 1% of all women. Other than karyotype abnormalities, very few genes are known to be associated with this ovarian dysfunction. Recently, in seven patients who presented with POF and white matter abnormalities on MRI (ovarioleukodystrophy) eight mutationswere found in EIF2B2, 4 and 5. METHODS: To further test the involvement of known mutations of EIF2B genes in POF, we screened 93 patients with POF who did not have identified leukodystrophy or neurological symptoms. We evaluated these eight mutations and two additional mutations that had been found in patients with milder forms of eIF2B-related disorders. We used restriction enzymes and direct sequencing. RESULTS: None of the known mutations in EIF2B genes, either homozygous or heterozygous, were identified in our 93 patients with pure 46,XX POF. The upper 95 % confidence limit of the proportion 0/93 is 3.2%. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that eIF2B mutations, already described in cases of POF associated with white matter abnormalities, are an uncommon cause of pure spontaneous premature ovarian failure.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 19%
Student > Master 4 19%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,454,066
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#792
of 1,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,246
of 62,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 62,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them