↓ Skip to main content

CRISPR‐Cas9‐Based Genome Editing of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

Overview of attention for article published in Current protocols in stem cell biology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
100 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.
Article details
Title
CRISPR‐Cas9‐Based Genome Editing of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells
Published in
Current protocols in stem cell biology, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/cpsc.46
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) are the ideal cell source for autologous cell replacement. However, for patients with Mendelian diseases, genetic correction of the original disease-causing mutation is likely required prior to cellular differentiation and transplantation. The emergence of the CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionized the field of genome editing. By introducing inexpensive reagents that are relatively straightforward to design and validate, it is now possible to correct genetic variants or insert desired sequences at any location within the genome. CRISPR-based genome editing of patient-specific iPSCs shows great promise for future autologous cell replacement therapies. One caveat, however, is that hiPSCs are notoriously difficult to transfect, and optimized experimental design considerations are often necessary. This unit describes design strategies and methods for efficient CRISPR-based genome editing of patient- specific iPSCs. Additionally, it details a flexible approach that utilizes positive selection to generate clones with a desired genomic modification, Cre-lox recombination to remove the integrated selection cassette, and negative selection to eliminate residual hiPSCs with intact selection cassettes. © 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Master 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 33 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 35 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 March 2018.
All research outputs
#23,329,605
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Current protocols in stem cell biology
#115
of 164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,643
of 372,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current protocols in stem cell biology
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 164 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 372,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.