↓ Skip to main content

Editing the human genome: where ART and science intersect

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Editing the human genome: where ART and science intersect
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10815-018-1219-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Avner Hershlag, Sara L. Bristow

Abstract

The rapid development of gene-editing technologies has led to an exponential rise in both basic and translational research initiatives studying molecular processes and investigating possible clinical applications. Early experiments using genome editing to study human embryo development have contradicted findings in studies on model organisms. Additionally, a series of four experiments over the past 2 years set out to investigate the possibilities of introducing genetic modifications to human embryos, each with varying levels of success. Here, we discuss the key findings of these studies, including the efficiency, the safety, the potential untoward effects, major flaws of the studies, and emerging alternative genome editing methods that may allow overcoming the hurdles encountered so far. Given these results, we also raise several questions about the clinical utilization of germline gene editing: For which indications is gene editing appropriate? How do gene-editing technologies compare with genetic testing methods currently used for screening embryos? What are the ethical considerations we should be concerned about? While further research is underway, and our understanding of how to implement this technology continues to evolve, it is critical to contemplate if and how it should be translated from the bench to clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 21%
Student > Master 6 18%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 05 May 2022.
All research outputs
#6,504,395
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
#356
of 1,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,115
of 333,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
#8
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 333,481 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.