↓ Skip to main content

Impact of gene editing on the study of cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Human Genetics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Impact of gene editing on the study of cystic fibrosis
Published in
Human Genetics, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00439-016-1693-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick T. Harrison, David J. Sanz, Jennifer A. Hollywood

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a chronic and progressive autosomal recessive disorder of secretory epithelial cells, which causes obstructions in the lung airways and pancreatic ducts of 70,000 people worldwide (for recent review see Cutting Nat Rev Genet 16(1):45-56, 2015). The finding that mutations in the CFTR gene cause CF (Kerem et al. Science 245(4922):1073-1080, 1989; Riordan et al. Science 245(4922):1066-1073, 1989; Rommens et al. Science 245(4922):1059-1065, 1989), was hailed as the very happy middle of a story whose end is a cure for a fatal disease (Koshland Science 245(4922):1029, 1989). However, despite two licensed drugs (Ramsey et al. N Engl J Med 365(18):1663-1672, 2011; Wainwright et al. N Engl J Med 373(3):220-231, 2015), and a formal demonstration that repeated administration of CFTR cDNA to patients is safe and effects a modest but significant stabilisation of disease (Alton et al. Lancet Respir Med 3(9):684-691, 2015), we are still a long way from a cure, with many patients taking over 100 tablets per day, and a mean age at death of 28 years. The aim of this review is to discuss the impact on the study of CF of gene-editing techniques as they have developed over the last 30 years, up to and including the possibility of editing as a therapeutic approach.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 11 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 June 2016.
All research outputs
#10,829,629
of 12,215,443 outputs
Outputs from Human Genetics
#2,353
of 2,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,206
of 270,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genetics
#36
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,215,443 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,462 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 270,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.