↓ Skip to main content

R132 mutations in canine isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) lead to functional changes

Overview of attention for article published in Veterinary Research Communications, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
R132 mutations in canine isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) lead to functional changes
Published in
Veterinary Research Communications, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11259-017-9707-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shota Kawakami, Kazuhiko Ochiai, Daigo Azakami, Yuiko Kato, Masaki Michishita, Masami Morimatsu, Toshina Ishiguro-Oonuma, Eri Onozawa, Masami Watanabe, Toshinori Omi

Abstract

Glioma is the second most common intracranial neoplasia in dogs, but the pathogenic mechanisms remain unclear. In humans, isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) is frequently mutated in gliomas. Although almost all human IDH1 mutations have been identified as involving the Arg132 codon, few studies have reported structural, functional, and mutational information for canine IDH1. Therefore, in this study, we cloned the canine IDH1 homologue and used PCR mutagenesis to substitute the wildtype (WT) Arg132 with His (R132H) or Ser (R132S). WT and mutated IDH1 were overexpressed in HeLa cells, and their presence was confirmed by immunoblotting and immunocytochemistry using mutation-specific antibodies. The IDH1 activity between WT, R132H, and R132S transfectants was compared by measuring the production of NADH and NADPH. NADPH production in R132H and R132S transfectants was lower than that in WT, but NADH levels were not significantly different. Finally, we detected increased expression of hypoxia inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1α) in the R132H and R132S transfectants. These results indicated that the canine IDH1 Arg132 mutation has the potential to induce carcinogenesis in canine somatic cells.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Student > Postgraduate 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Other 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 14%
Other 0 0%

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 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#10,007,835
of 12,504,607 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Research Communications
#182
of 261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,969
of 345,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Research Communications
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,504,607 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 261 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 345,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.