↓ Skip to main content

A beginner's guide to gene editing

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Physiology, January 2018
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
A beginner's guide to gene editing
Published in
Experimental Physiology, January 2018
DOI 10.1113/ep086047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick T. Harrison, Stephen Hart

Abstract

Genome editing enables precise changes to be made in the genome of living cells. The technique was originally developed in the 1980's but largely limited to use in mice. The discovery that a targeted double stranded break (DSB) at a unique site in the genome, close to the site to be changed, could substantially increase the efficiency of editing raised the possibility of using the technique in a broader range of animal models and potentially human cells. But the challenge was to identify reagents that could create targeted breaks at a unique genomic location with minimal off-target effects. In 2005, the demonstration that programmable zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) could perform this task, led to a number of proof-of-concept studies, but a limitation was the ease with which effective ZFNs could be produced. In 2009, the development of TAL-effector nucleases (TALENs) increased the specificity of gene editing and the ease of design and production. However, it wasn't until 2013 and the development of the CRISPR Cas9/guideRNA that gene editing became a research tool that any lab could use. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 19%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 5 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 30 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 32 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,650,752
of 20,093,644 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Physiology
#342
of 2,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,231
of 433,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Physiology
#12
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,093,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 433,071 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.