| Title |
Lysyl oxidase-like 1 polymorphisms in a southwestern Greek cataract population with pseudoexfoliation syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s90789 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexios A Panoutsopoulos, Vassiliki S Gartaganis, Marios P Giannakopoulos, Panos D Goumas, Evangelos D Anastassiou, Sotirios P Gartaganis |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to determine the possible association of rs1048661 and rs3825942 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the lysyl oxidase-like 1 (LOXL1) gene of cataract patients from southwestern Greece with pseudoexfoliation (PEX) syndrome. Ninety-three patients with PEX syndrome and 74 without PEX syndrome were recruited with the principal diagnosis being cataract. LOXL1 SNPs, rs1048661 and rs3825942, were genotyped by using polymerase chain reaction. The G allele of rs1048661 was found in 96.7% in the PEX group as compared to 80.5% of non-PEX alleles (P=19×10(-4); Odds ratio [OR] =5.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.68-17.12). Similarly, the G allele of rs3825942 was found in 72.1% of the PEX group as compared to 41.8% of non-PEX alleles (P=4×10(-5); OR =3.78; 95% CI =1.98-7.23). The T and A allele frequencies of rs1048661 and rs3825942, respectively, were underrepresented in the PEX group patients as compared to non-PEX group. Our data confirm previously reported association between LOXL1 polymorphisms and PEX syndrome in a southwestern Greek population. A significant association was found for the G allele of rs1048661 and rs3825942 demonstrating that the GG haplotype is a high-risk factor for the development of PEX syndrome. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 38% |
| Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 63% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
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 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,475
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,477
of 399,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#43
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 399,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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.