↓ Skip to main content

Plant genome editing with TALEN and CRISPR

Overview of attention for article published in Cell & Bioscience, April 2017
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 (#26 of 1,146)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
patent
5 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
14 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
210 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
414 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
Plant genome editing with TALEN and CRISPR
Published in
Cell & Bioscience, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13578-017-0148-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aimee Malzahn, Levi Lowder, Yiping Qi

Abstract

Genome editing promises giant leaps forward in advancing biotechnology, agriculture, and basic research. The process relies on the use of sequence specific nucleases (SSNs) to make DNA double stranded breaks at user defined genomic loci, which are subsequently repaired by two main DNA repair pathways: non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homology directed repair (HDR). NHEJ can result in frameshift mutations that often create genetic knockouts. These knockout lines are useful for functional and reverse genetic studies but also have applications in agriculture. HDR has a variety of applications as it can be used for gene replacement, gene stacking, and for creating various fusion proteins. In recent years, transcription activator-like effector nucleases and clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR associated protein 9 or CRISPR from Prevotella and Francisella 1 have emerged as the preferred SSNs for research purposes. Here, we review their applications in plant research, discuss current limitations, and predict future research directions in plant genome editing.

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 414 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 412 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 65 16%
Student > Master 59 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 13%
Researcher 49 12%
Student > Postgraduate 15 4%
Other 51 12%
Unknown 120 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 148 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 107 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 1%
Unspecified 5 1%
Other 20 5%
Unknown 123 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 21 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,438,468
of 25,008,338 outputs
Outputs from Cell & Bioscience
#26
of 1,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,704
of 315,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell & Bioscience
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,008,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,146 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 315,275 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.