| Title |
Scarless genome editing: progress towards understanding genotype–phenotype relationships
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Genetics, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00294-018-0850-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gregory L. Elison, Murat Acar |
| Abstract |
The ability to predict phenotype from genotype has been an elusive goal for the biological sciences for several decades. Progress decoding genotype-phenotype relationships has been hampered by the challenge of introducing precise genetic changes to specific genomic locations. Here we provide a comparative review of the major techniques that have been historically used to make genetic changes in cells as well as the development of the CRISPR technology which enabled the ability to make marker-free disruptions in endogenous genomic locations. We also discuss how the achievement of truly scarless genome editing has required further adjustments of the original CRISPR method. We conclude by examining recently developed genome editing methods which are not reliant on the induction of a DNA double strand break and discuss the future of both genome engineering and the study of genotype-phenotype relationships. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 34% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 45% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 21% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,008,464
of 24,998,746 outputs
Outputs from Current Genetics
#886
of 1,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,425
of 335,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Genetics
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,998,746 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,225 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 335,949 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 20 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 50% of its contemporaries.