Synthetic Biology
Springer New York
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Chapter title |
Bacterial Genome Editing with CRISPR-Cas9: Taking Clostridium beijerinckii as an Example. - PubMed - NCBI
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 17 |
| Book title |
Synthetic Biology
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-7795-6_17 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-7794-9, 978-1-4939-7795-6
|
| Authors |
Zhang, Zhong-Tian, Jiménez-Bonilla, Pablo, Seo, Seung-Oh, Lu, Ting, Jin, Yong-Su, Blaschek, Hans P, Wang, Yi, Zhong-Tian Zhang, Pablo Jiménez-Bonilla, Seung-Oh Seo, Ting Lu, Yong-Su Jin, Hans P. Blaschek, Yi Wang |
| Abstract |
CRISPR-Cas9 has been explored as a transformative genome engineering tool for many eukaryotic organisms. However, its utilization in bacteria remains limited and ineffective. This chapter, taking Clostridium beijerinckii as an example, describes the use of Streptococcus pyogenes CRISPR-Cas9 system guided by the single chimeric guide RNA (gRNA) for diverse genome-editing purposes, including chromosomal gene deletion, integration, single nucleotide modification, as well as "clean" mutant selection. The general principle is to use CRISPR-Cas9 as an efficient selection tool for the edited mutant (whose CRISPR-Cas9 target site has been disrupted through a homologous recombination event and thus can survive selection) against? the wild type background cells. This protocol is broadly applicable to other microorganisms for genome-editing purposes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 36% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 25% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 February 2019.
All research outputs
#7,699,921
of 23,419,482 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#2,394
of 13,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,915
of 444,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#233
of 1,486 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,419,482 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,324 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 444,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,486 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.