↓ Skip to main content

Expression profiling of white sponge nevus by RNA sequencing revealed pathological pathways

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Expression profiling of white sponge nevus by RNA sequencing revealed pathological pathways
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13023-015-0285-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenping Cai, Beizhan Jiang, Tienan Feng, Jinfeng Xue, Jianhua Yang, Zhenghu Chen, Junjun Liu, Rongbin Wei, Shangfeng Liu, Shouliang Zhao, Xiaoping Wang

Abstract

White sponge nevus (WSN) is a rare periodontal hereditary disease. To date, almost all WSN studies have focused on case reports or mutation reports. Thus, the mechanism behind WSN is still unclear. We investigated the pathogenesis of WSN using expression profiling. Sequence analysis of samples from a WSN Chinese family revealed a mutation (332 T > C) in the KRT13 gene that resulted in the amino acid change Leu111Pro. The pathological pathway behind the WSN expression profile was investigated by RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). Construction of a heatmap revealed 24 activated genes and 57 reduced genes in the WSN patients. The ribosome structure was damaged in the WSN patients. Moreover, the translation rate was limited in the WSN patients, whereas ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis was enhanced. Our results suggest that the abnormal degradation of the KRT13 protein in WSN patients may be associated with keratin 7 (KRT7) and an abnormal ubiquitination process.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Lecturer 1 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 27%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 9%
Unknown 5 45%

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 13 June 2015.
All research outputs
#10,647,130
of 16,638,522 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,220
of 1,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,842
of 238,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,638,522 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 238,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.