↓ Skip to main content

Fhf2 gene deletion causes temperature-sensitive cardiac conduction failure

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
6 tweeters


21 Dimensions

Readers on

30 Mendeley
Fhf2 gene deletion causes temperature-sensitive cardiac conduction failure
Published in
Nature Communications, October 2016
DOI 10.1038/ncomms12966
Pubmed ID

David S. Park, Akshay Shekhar, Christopher Marra, Xianming Lin, Carolina Vasquez, Sergio Solinas, Kevin Kelley, Gregory Morley, Mitchell Goldfarb, Glenn I. Fishman


Fever is a highly conserved systemic response to infection dating back over 600 million years. Although conferring a survival benefit, fever can negatively impact the function of excitable tissues, such as the heart, producing cardiac arrhythmias. Here we show that mice lacking fibroblast growth factor homologous factor 2 (FHF2) have normal cardiac rhythm at baseline, but increasing core body temperature by as little as 3 °C causes coved-type ST elevations and progressive conduction failure that is fully reversible upon return to normothermia. FHF2-deficient cardiomyocytes generate action potentials upon current injection at 25 °C but are unexcitable at 40 °C. The absence of FHF2 accelerates the rate of closed-state and open-state sodium channel inactivation, which synergizes with temperature-dependent enhancement of inactivation rate to severely suppress cardiac sodium currents at elevated temperatures. Our experimental and computational results identify an essential role for FHF2 in dictating myocardial excitability and conduction that safeguards against temperature-sensitive conduction failure.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 28 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Master 5 17%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 13%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 November 2020.
All research outputs
of 19,441,086 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
of 38,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 286,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
of 915 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,441,086 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 38,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 53.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 286,772 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 915 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 51% of its contemporaries.