↓ Skip to main content

CRISPR: a versatile tool for both forward and reverse genetics research

Overview of attention for article published in Human Genetics, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
Title
CRISPR: a versatile tool for both forward and reverse genetics research
Published in
Human Genetics, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00439-016-1704-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Channabasavaiah B. Gurumurthy, M’hamed Grati, Masato Ohtsuka, Samantha L. P. Schilit, Rolen M. Quadros, Xue Zhong Liu

Abstract

Human genetics research employs the two opposing approaches of forward and reverse genetics. While forward genetics identifies and links a mutation to an observed disease etiology, reverse genetics induces mutations in model organisms to study their role in disease. In most cases, causality for mutations identified by forward genetics is confirmed by reverse genetics through the development of genetically engineered animal models and an assessment of whether the model can recapitulate the disease. While many technological advances have helped improve these approaches, some gaps still remain. CRISPR/Cas (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated), which has emerged as a revolutionary genetic engineering tool, holds great promise for closing such gaps. By combining the benefits of forward and reverse genetics, it has dramatically expedited human genetics research. We provide a perspective on the power of CRISPR-based forward and reverse genetics tools in human genetics and discuss its applications using some disease examples.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 145 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Student > Master 16 11%
Unspecified 7 5%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 45 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 48 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 14%
Unspecified 7 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 45 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 August 2023.
All research outputs
#3,889,724
of 24,387,992 outputs
Outputs from Human Genetics
#374
of 3,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,465
of 362,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genetics
#6
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,387,992 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 362,486 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.