| Title |
Practical Recommendations for Improving Efficiency and Accuracy of the CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing System
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biochemistry, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1134/s0006297918060020 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. N. Karagyaur, Y. P. Rubtsov, P. A. Vasiliev, V. A. Tkachuk |
| Abstract |
CRISPR/Cas9 genome-editing system is a powerful, fairly accurate, and efficient tool for modifying genomic DNA. Despite obvious advantages, it is not devoid of certain drawbacks, such as propensity for introduction of additional nonspecific DNA breaks, insufficient activity against aneuploid genomes, and relative difficulty in delivering its components to cells. In this review, we focus on the difficulties that can limit the use of CRISPR/Cas9 and suggest a number of practical recommendations and information sources that will make it easier for the beginners to work with this outstanding technological achievement of the XXI century. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 34% |
| Researcher | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 49% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
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 15 September 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Biochemistry
#19,312
of 22,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,472
of 341,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biochemistry
#76
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,293 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 341,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.