↓ Skip to main content

The missing story behind Genome Wide Association Studies: single nucleotide polymorphisms in gene deserts have a story to tell

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
The missing story behind Genome Wide Association Studies: single nucleotide polymorphisms in gene deserts have a story to tell
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00039
Pubmed ID
Authors

William Schierding, Wayne S. Cutfield, Justin M. O'Sullivan

Abstract

Genome wide association studies are central to the evolution of personalized medicine. However, the propensity for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to fall outside of genes means that understanding how these polymorphisms alter cellular function requires an expanded view of human genetics. Integrating the study of genome structure (chromosome conformation capture) into its function opens up new avenues of exploration. Changes in the epigenome associated with SNPs in gene deserts will allow us to define complex diseases in a much clearer manner, and usher in a new era of disease pathway exploration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 91 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 22%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 10%
Computer Science 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 14 15%
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 09 March 2014.
All research outputs
#14,991,986
of 26,301,262 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#3,063
of 13,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,774
of 322,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#21
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,301,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,888 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 322,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.