↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the editing patterns and editing efficiencies of TALEN and CRISPR-Cas9 when targeting the human CCR5 gene

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics and Molecular Biology, March 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 (#46 of 772)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of the editing patterns and editing efficiencies of TALEN and CRISPR-Cas9 when targeting the human CCR5 gene
Published in
Genetics and Molecular Biology, March 2018
DOI 10.1590/1678-4685-gmb-2017-0065
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arildo Nerys-Junior, Luciene P. Braga-Dias, Paula Pezzuto, Vinícius Cotta-de-Almeida, Amilcar Tanuri

Abstract

The human C-C chemokine receptor type-5 (CCR5) is the major transmembrane co-receptor that mediates HIV-1 entry into target CD4+ cells. Gene therapy to knock-out the CCR5 gene has shown encouraging results in providing a functional cure for HIV-1 infection. In gene therapy strategies, the initial region of the CCR5 gene is a hotspot for producing functional gene knock-out. Such target gene editing can be done using programmable endonucleases such as transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR-Cas9). These two gene editing approaches are the most modern and effective tools for precise gene modification. However, little is known of potential differences in the efficiencies of TALEN and CRISPR-Cas9 for editing the beginning of the CCR5 gene. To examine which of these two methods is best for gene therapy, we compared the patterns and amount of editing at the beginning of the CCR5 gene using TALEN and CRISPR-Cas9 followed by DNA sequencing. This comparison revealed that CRISPR-Cas9 mediated the sorting of cells that contained 4.8 times more gene editing than TALEN+ transfected cells.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 30%
Student > Master 15 14%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 38 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 31 29%
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 29 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,713,898
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Genetics and Molecular Biology
#46
of 772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,377
of 348,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics and Molecular Biology
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 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 772 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 348,782 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 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.