↓ Skip to main content

Deletion Extents Are Not the Cause of Clinical Variability in 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome: Does the Interaction between DGCR8 and miRNA-CNVs Play a Major Role?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Deletion Extents Are Not the Cause of Clinical Variability in 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome: Does the Interaction between DGCR8 and miRNA-CNVs Play a Major Role?
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2017.00047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veronica Bertini, Alessia Azzarà, Annalisa Legitimo, Roberta Milone, Roberta Battini, Rita Consolini, Angelo Valetto

Abstract

In humans, the most common genomic disorder is the hemizygous deletion of the chromosome 22q11.2 region, that results in the "22q11.2 deletion syndrome" (22q11.2DS). A peculiarity of 22q11.2DS is its great phenotypic variability that makes this pathology a classic example of a syndrome with variable expressivity and incomplete penetrance. The reasons for this variability have not been elucidated yet, and the molecular substrates underlying the different clinical features of 22q11.2DS are still debated. A cohort of 21 patients has been analyzed by array CGH in order to detect some of the genetic differences that may influence this variability. Two aspects have been investigated: (1) the precise localization of the deletion breakpoints within the low copy repeats (LCRs), (2) the additional Copy Number Variations (CNVs) elsewhere in the genome, by analyzing their gene content. Both protein-coding genes and miRNAs were considered, in order to discover possible epistatic interactions between genes of the 22q11.2 region and the rest of the genome. Eighteen out of twenty-one patients had a deletion of ~3 Mb mediated by LCR22-A and D, whereas 3/21 had a smaller deletion. The breakpoints within the LCR22-A and D do not have a major role in the phenotypic variability since they are rather clustered and the small differences concern genes that are not directly related to clinical signs of 22q11.2DS. A detailed analysis of the gene content of 22q11.2 deleted region indicates that this syndrome could be a bioenergetic disorder or consequence of an altered post-transcriptional gene regulation, due to the presence of DGCR8, a major player of the microRNA (miRNA) biogenesis. Only four genes with mitochondrial function are harbored in the additional CNVs, whereas 11 miRNA, all related to biological pathways present in the 22q11.2DS, have been detected in 19/21 patients. CNVs and miRNAs are new entities that have changed the order of complexity at the level of gene expression and regulation, thus CNV-miRNAs (miRNA harbored in the CNVs) are potential functional variants that should be considered high priority candidate variants in genotype-phenotype association studies. Deletion of DGCR8, the main actor in miRNA biogenesis, amplifies this variability. To our knowledge, this is the first report that focus on the miRNA-CNVs in 22q11.2DS, with the aim of trying to better understand their role in the variable expressivity and incomplete penetrance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 14%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 15 27%
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 04 June 2017.
All research outputs
#13,197,801
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#2,933
of 11,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,041
of 310,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#28
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 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 11,995 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 310,724 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.