↓ Skip to main content

Guide Picker is a comprehensive design tool for visualizing and selecting guides for CRISPR experiments

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2017
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Guide Picker is a comprehensive design tool for visualizing and selecting guides for CRISPR experiments
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1581-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soren H. Hough, Kris Kancleris, Leigh Brody, Neil Humphryes-Kirilov, Joseph Wolanski, Keith Dunaway, Ayokunmi Ajetunmobi, Victor Dillard

Abstract

Guide Picker ( https://www.deskgen.com/guide-picker/ ) serves as a meta tool for designing CRISPR experiments by presenting ten different guide RNA scoring functions in one simple graphical interface. It allows investigators to simultaneously visualize and sort through every guide targeting the protein-coding regions of any mouse or human gene. Utilizing a multidimensional graphical display featuring two plots and four axes, Guide Picker can analyze all guides while filtering based on four different criteria at a time. Guide Picker further facilitates the CRISPR design process by using pre-computed scores for all guides, thereby offering rapid guide RNA generation and selection. The ease-of-use of Guide Picker complements CRISPR itself, matching a powerful and modular biological system with a flexible online web tool that can be used in a variety of genome editing experimental contexts.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 29%
Computer Science 4 8%
Engineering 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 6 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#865,019
of 11,438,239 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#347
of 4,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,083
of 257,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#8
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,438,239 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,236 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 257,760 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.