↓ Skip to main content

Naming CRISPR alleles: endonuclease-mediated mutation nomenclature across species

Overview of attention for article published in Mammalian Genome, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Naming CRISPR alleles: endonuclease-mediated mutation nomenclature across species
Published in
Mammalian Genome, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00335-017-9698-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle N. Knowlton, Cynthia L. Smith

Abstract

The widespread use of CRISPR/Cas and other targeted endonuclease technologies in many species has led to an explosion in the generation of new mutations and alleles. The ability to generate many different mutations from the same target sequence either by homology-directed repair with a donor sequence or non-homologous end joining-induced insertions and deletions necessitates a means for representing these mutations in literature and databases. Standardized nomenclature can be used to generate unambiguous, concise, and specific symbols to represent mutations and alleles. The research communities of a variety of species using CRISPR/Cas and other endonuclease-mediated mutation technologies have developed different approaches to naming and identifying such alleles and mutations. While some organism-specific research communities have developed allele nomenclature that incorporates the method of generation within the official allele or mutant symbol, others use metadata tags that include method of generation or mutagen. Organism-specific research community databases together with organism-specific nomenclature committees are leading the way in providing standardized nomenclature and metadata to facilitate the integration of data from alleles and mutations generated using CRISPR/Cas and other targeted endonucleases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 15%
Other 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 18%
Unspecified 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 11 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 July 2023.
All research outputs
#7,494,516
of 24,643,522 outputs
Outputs from Mammalian Genome
#301
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,226
of 321,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mammalian Genome
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,643,522 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 321,888 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.