↓ Skip to main content

Extensions of MADM (Mosaic Analysis with Double Markers) in Mice

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2012
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 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
Extensions of MADM (Mosaic Analysis with Double Markers) in Mice
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0033332
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bosiljka Tasic, Kazunari Miyamichi, Simon Hippenmeyer, Vardhan S. Dani, Hong Zeng, William Joo, Hui Zong, Yanru Chen-Tsai, Liqun Luo

Abstract

Mosaic Analysis with Double Markers (MADM) is a method for generating genetically mosaic mice, in which sibling mutant and wild-type cells are labeled with different fluorescent markers. It is a powerful tool that enables analysis of gene function at the single cell level in vivo. It requires transgenic cassettes to be located between the centromere and the mutation in the gene of interest on the same chromosome. Here we compare procedures for introduction of MADM cassettes into new loci in the mouse genome, and describe new approaches for expanding the utility of MADM. We show that: 1) Targeted homologous recombination outperforms random transgenesis in generation of reliably expressed MADM cassettes, 2) MADM cassettes in new genomic loci need to be validated for biallelic and ubiquitous expression, 3) Recombination between MADM cassettes on different chromosomes can be used to study reciprocal chromosomal deletions/duplications, and 4) MADM can be modified to permit transgene expression by combining it with a binary expression system. The advances described in this study expand current, and enable new and more versatile applications of MADM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 147 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 55 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 22%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Student > Master 8 5%
Professor 7 5%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 19 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 42%
Neuroscience 25 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 5%
Engineering 6 4%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 22 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,705,833
of 23,891,012 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#69,473
of 204,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,184
of 162,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#890
of 3,706 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,891,012 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 204,034 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 162,605 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,706 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.