↓ Skip to main content

Not all predicted CRISPR–Cas systems are equal: isolated cas genes and classes of CRISPR like elements

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Not all predicted CRISPR–Cas systems are equal: isolated cas genes and classes of CRISPR like elements
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1512-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Quan Zhang, Yuzhen Ye

Abstract

The CRISPR-Cas systems in prokaryotes are RNA-guided immune systems that target and deactivate foreign nucleic acids. A typical CRISPR-Cas system consists of a CRISPR array of repeat and spacer units, and a locus of cas genes. The CRISPR and the cas locus are often located next to each other in the genomes. However, there is no quantitative estimate of the co-location. In addition, ad-hoc studies have shown that some non-CRISPR genomic elements contain repeat-spacer-like structures and are mistaken as CRISPRs. Using available genome sequences, we observed that a significant number of genomes have isolated cas loci and/or CRISPRs. We found that 11%, 22% and 28% of the type I, II and III cas loci are isolated (without CRISPRs in the same genomes at all or with CRISPRs distant in the genomes), respectively. We identified a large number of genomic elements that superficially reassemble CRISPRs but don't contain diverse spacers and have no companion cas genes. We called these elements false-CRISPRs and further classified them into groups, including tandem repeats and Staphylococcus aureus repeat (STAR)-like elements. This is the first systematic study to collect and characterize false-CRISPR elements. We demonstrated that false-CRISPRs could be used to reduce the false annotation of CRISPRs, therefore showing them to be useful for improving the annotation of CRISPR-Cas systems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 22%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Researcher 13 11%
Other 8 7%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 18 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 45 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 27%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 7%
Computer Science 5 4%
Mathematics 1 <1%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 22 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,815,285
of 19,882,255 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,557
of 6,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,936
of 381,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#6
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,882,255 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 381,126 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.