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 |
Standardized Cloning and Curing of Plasmids
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 28 |
| Book title |
Synthetic Biology
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-7795-6_28 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-7794-9, 978-1-4939-7795-6
|
| Authors |
Ida Lauritsen, Se Hyeuk Kim, Andreas Porse, Morten H. H. Nørholm, Lauritsen, Ida, Kim, Se Hyeuk, Porse, Andreas, Nørholm, Morten H. H. |
| Abstract |
Plasmids are highly useful tools for studying living cells and for heterologous expression of genes and pathways in cell factories. Standardized tools and operating procedures for handling such DNA vectors are core principles in synthetic biology. Here, we describe protocols for molecular cloning and exchange of genetic parts in the Standard European Vectors Architecture (SEVA) vector system. Additionally, to facilitate rapid testing and iterative bioengineering using different vector designs, we provide a one-step protocol for a universal CRISPR-Cas9-based plasmid curing system (pFREE) and demonstrate the application of this system to cure SEVA constructs (all vectors are available at SEVA/Addgene). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 17% |
| Sweden | 1 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 17% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 August 2022.
All research outputs
#5,930,649
of 24,255,619 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#1,594
of 13,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,751
of 450,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#133
of 1,482 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,255,619 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,638 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 450,549 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,482 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.