↓ Skip to main content

International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 575)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
82 news outlets
blogs
10 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
43 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 Mendeley
Title
International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization
Published in
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1477-7827-12-108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Motoko Araki, Tetsuya Ishii

Abstract

Genome editing technology, including zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas, has enabled far more efficient genetic engineering even in non-human primates. This biotechnology is more likely to develop into medicine for preventing a genetic disease if corrective genome editing is integrated into assisted reproductive technology, represented by in vitro fertilization. Although rapid advances in genome editing are expected to make germline gene correction feasible in a clinical setting, there are many issues that still need to be addressed before this could occur. We herein examine current status of genome editing in mammalian embryonic stem cells and zygotes and discuss potential issues in the international regulatory landscape regarding human germline gene modification. Moreover, we address some ethical and social issues that would be raised when each country considers whether genome editing-mediated germline gene correction for preventive medicine should be permitted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 274 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 89 32%
Student > Master 57 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 12%
Researcher 28 10%
Other 12 4%
Other 36 13%
Unknown 21 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 74 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 65 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 10%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Philosophy 12 4%
Other 57 21%
Unknown 29 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 747. 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 25 November 2019.
All research outputs
#8,167
of 14,186,746 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#1
of 575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117
of 300,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,186,746 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 300,329 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.