↓ Skip to main content

Gene Expression Meta-Analysis of Seven Candidate Gene Sets for Diabetes Traits Following a GWAS Pathway Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Gene Expression Meta-Analysis of Seven Candidate Gene Sets for Diabetes Traits Following a GWAS Pathway Study
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2018.00052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hao Mei, Lianna Li, Michael Griswold, Thomas Mosley

Abstract

Seven gene sets were significantly enriched for SNP associations with diabetes, and considered as potential diabetes pathways in a previous meta-analysis of diabetes GWAS. This study aims to examine if these gene sets also have expression associations with diabetes. The analysis was conducted using pooled data from 23 diabetes gene expression studies. Gene associations were examined using linear modeling with an empirical Bayes approach, and pathway associations were investigated by testing enrichment for significant genes. Meta-analyses were performed to investigate gene and pathway associations in all studies and tissue types. The analysis showed that six gene sets and three member genes of ACADSB, RASSF2, and KLF12 had significant associations with diabetes traits. The findings suggest that these gene sets are related to diabetes regulation, and their functions tend to be tissue non-specific.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 35%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Unknown 8 47%
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 06 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,930,799
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#6,170
of 12,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,592
of 336,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#82
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,073 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 336,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.