| Title |
Holotranscobalamin (HoloTC, Active-B12) and Herbert’s model for the development of vitamin B12 deficiency: a review and alternative hypothesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-2252-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Henry Golding |
| Abstract |
The concentration of total vitamin B12 in serum is not a sufficiently sensitive or specific indicator for the reliable diagnosis of vitamin B12 deficiency. Victor Herbert proposed a model for the staged development of vitamin B12 deficiency, in which holotranscobalamin (HoloTC) is the first indicator of deficiency. Based on this model, a commercial immunoassay has been controversially promoted as a replacement for the total vitamin B12 test. HoloTC is cobalamin (vitamin B12) attached to the transport protein transcobalamin, in the serum, for delivery to cells for metabolism. Although there have been many published reports supporting the claims for HoloTC, the results of some studies were inconsistent with the claim of HoloTC as the most sensitive marker of vitamin B12 deficiency. This review examines the evidence for and against the use of HoloTC, and concludes that the HoloTC immunoassay cannot be used to measure vitamin B12 status any more reliably than total vitamin B12, or to predict the onset of a metabolic deficiency, because it is based on an erroneous hypothesis and a flawed model for the staged development of vitamin B12 deficiency. The author proposes an alternative model for the development of vitamin B12 deficiency. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 27 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,200,016
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#765
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,094
of 333,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#85
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 333,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 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 56% of its contemporaries.