↓ Skip to main content

Pooled CRISPR interference screening enables genome-scale functional genomics study in bacteria with superior performance

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, June 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 (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
183 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
317 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
Pooled CRISPR interference screening enables genome-scale functional genomics study in bacteria with superior performance
Published in
Nature Communications, June 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41467-018-04899-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tianmin Wang, Changge Guan, Jiahui Guo, Bing Liu, Yinan Wu, Zhen Xie, Chong Zhang, Xin-Hui Xing

Abstract

To fully exploit the microbial genome resources, a high-throughput experimental platform is needed to associate genes with phenotypes at the genome level. We present here a novel method that enables investigation of the cellular consequences of repressing individual transcripts based on the CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) pooled screening in bacteria. We identify rules for guide RNA library design to handle the unique structure of prokaryotic genomes by tiling screening and construct an E. coli genome-scale guide RNA library (~60,000 members) accordingly. We show that CRISPRi outperforms transposon sequencing, the benchmark method in the microbial functional genomics field, when similar library sizes are used or gene length is short. This tool is also effective for mapping phenotypes to non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), as elucidated by a comprehensive tRNA-fitness map constructed here. Our results establish CRISPRi pooled screening as a powerful tool for mapping complex prokaryotic genetic networks in a precise and high-throughput manner.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users 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 317 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 317 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 19%
Researcher 43 14%
Student > Bachelor 35 11%
Student > Master 32 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 43 14%
Unknown 86 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 101 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 4%
Chemical Engineering 11 3%
Engineering 8 3%
Other 34 11%
Unknown 98 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 07 August 2023.
All research outputs
#2,215,796
of 24,611,662 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#26,684
of 53,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,377
of 334,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#680
of 1,266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,611,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 53,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 334,398 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.