| Title |
CRISPR/Cas9: an advanced tool for editing plant genomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Transgenic Research, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11248-016-9953-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Milan Kumar Samanta, Avishek Dey, Srimonta Gayen |
| Abstract |
To meet current challenges in agriculture, genome editing using sequence-specific nucleases (SSNs) is a powerful tool for basic and applied plant biology research. Here, we describe the principle and application of available genome editing tools, including zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat associated CRISPR/Cas9 system. Among these SSNs, CRISPR/Cas9 is the most recently characterized and rapidly developing genome editing technology, and has been successfully utilized in a wide variety of organisms. This review specifically illustrates the power of CRISPR/Cas9 as a tool for plant genome engineering, and describes the strengths and weaknesses of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology compared to two well-established genome editing tools, ZFNs and TALENs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 240 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 53 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 31 | 13% |
| Unknown | 56 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 102 | 41% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 59 | 24% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 2% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 4% |
| Unknown | 65 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,030,718
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Transgenic Research
#165
of 890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,660
of 300,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transgenic Research
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 300,491 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 68% of its contemporaries.