↓ Skip to main content

A novel nonsense mutation in MYO15A is associated with non-syndromic hearing loss: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Genomics, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
A novel nonsense mutation in MYO15A is associated with non-syndromic hearing loss: a case report
Published in
BMC Medical Genomics, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12881-018-0657-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Di Ma, Shanshan Shen, Hui Gao, Hui Guo, Yumei Lin, Yuhua Hu, Ruanzhang Zhang, Shayan Wang

Abstract

Hearing loss is genetically heterogeneous and is one of the most common human defects. Here we screened the underlying mutations that caused autosomal recessive non-syndromic hearing loss in a Chinese family. The proband with profound hearing loss had received audiometric assessments. We performed target region capture and next generation sequencing of 127 known deafness-related genes because the individual tested negative for hotspot variants in the GJB2, GJB3, SLC26A4, and MTRNR1 genes. We identified a novel c.6892C > T (p.R2298*) nonsense mutation and a c.10251_10253delCTT (p.F3420del) deletion in MYO15A. Sanger sequencing confirmed that both mutations were co-segregated with hearing loss in this family and were absent in 200 ethnically matched controls. Bioinformatics analysis and protein modeling indicated the deleterious effects of both mutations. The p.R2298* mutation leads to a truncated protein and a loss of the functional domains. Our results demonstrated that the hearing loss in this case was caused by novel, compound heterozygous mutations in MYO15A. The p.R2298* mutation in MYO15A was reported for the first time, which has implications for genetic counseling and provides insight into the functional roles of MYO15A mutations.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Master 1 5%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 53%
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 03 August 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#2,010
of 2,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,007
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#41
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,444 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 341,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.