↓ Skip to main content

Yeast genetic interaction screens in the age of CRISPR/Cas

Overview of attention for article published in Current Genetics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 1,209)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Yeast genetic interaction screens in the age of CRISPR/Cas
Published in
Current Genetics, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00294-018-0887-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neil R. Adames, Jenna E. Gallegos, Jean Peccoud

Abstract

The ease of performing both forward and reverse genetics in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, along with its stable haploid state and short generation times, has made this budding yeast the consummate model eukaryote for genetics. The major advantage of using budding yeast for reverse genetics is this organism's highly efficient homology-directed repair, allowing for precise genome editing simply by introducing DNA with homology to the chromosomal target. Although plasmid- and PCR-based genome editing tools are quite efficient, they depend on rare spontaneous DNA breaks near the target sequence. Consequently, they can generate only one genomic edit at a time, and the edit must be associated with a selectable marker. However, CRISPR/Cas technology is efficient enough to permit markerless and multiplexed edits in a single step. These features have made CRISPR/Cas popular for yeast strain engineering in synthetic biology and metabolic engineering applications, but it has not been widely employed for genetic screens. In this review, we critically examine different methods to generate multi-mutant strains in systematic genetic interaction screens and discuss the potential of CRISPR/Cas to supplement or improve on these methods.

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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Student > Master 16 17%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 6%
Chemistry 4 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 25 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,310,830
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from Current Genetics
#42
of 1,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,837
of 342,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Genetics
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,209 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 342,143 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.