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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Genetic variation in folate metabolism is associated with the risk of conotruncal heart defects in a Chinese population
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pediatrics, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12887-018-1266-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xike Wang, Haitao Wei, Ying Tian, Yue Wu, Lei Luo |
| Abstract |
Conotruncal heart defects (CTDs) are a subgroup of congenital heart defects that are considered to be the most common type of birth defect worldwide. Genetic disturbances in folate metabolism may increase the risk of CTDs. We evaluated five single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes related to folic acid metabolism: methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR C677T and A1298C), solute carrier family 19, member 1 (SLC19A1 G80A), methionine synthase (MTR A2576G), and methionine synthase reductase (MTRR A66G), as risk factors for CTDs including various types of malformation, in a total of 193 mothers with CTD-affected offspring and 234 healthy controls in a Chinese population. Logistic regression analyses revealed that subjects carrying the TT genotype of MTHFR C677T, the C allele of MTHFR A1298C, and the AA genotype of SLC19A1 G80A had significant 2.47-fold (TT vs. CC, OR [95% CI] = 2.47 [1.42-4.32], p = 0.009), 2.05-2.20-fold (AC vs. AA, 2.05 [1.28-3.21], p = 0.0023; CC vs AA, 2.20 [1.38-3.58], p = 0.0011), and 1.68-fold (AA vs. GG, 1.68 [1.02-2.70], p = 0.0371) increased risk of CTDs, respectively. Subjects carrying both variant genotypes of MTHFR A1298C and SLC19A1 G80A had a higher (3.23 [1.71-6.02], p = 0.0002) increased risk for CTDs. Moreover, the MTHFR C677T, MTHFR A1298C, and MTRR A66G polymorphisms were found to be significantly associated with the risk of certain subtypes of CTD. Our data suggest that maternal folate-related SNPs might be associated with the risk of CTDs in offspring. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Librarian | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,832,615
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#925
of 3,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,912
of 334,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#34
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 334,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.