↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of CRISPR/Cas9 and TALENs on editing an integrated EGFP gene in the genome of HEK293FT cells

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Comparison of CRISPR/Cas9 and TALENs on editing an integrated EGFP gene in the genome of HEK293FT cells
Published in
SpringerPlus, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2536-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zuyong He, Chris Proudfoot, C. Bruce A. Whitelaw, Simon G. Lillico

Abstract

Genome editors such as CRISPR/Cas9 and TALENs are at the forefront of research into methodologies for targeted modification of the mammalian genome. To date few comparative studies have been carried out to investigate the difference of genome editing characteristics between CRISPR/Cas9 and TALENs. While the CRISPR/Cas9 system has overtaken TALENs as the tool of choice for most research groups working in this field, we hypothesized that there could be certain applications whereby the application of TALENs would have specific benefits. Here we compare CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN as tools for introducing site-specific editing events at an integrated EGFP gene in the genome of HEK293FT cells. Guide RNAs and TALEN pairs were designed to target two loci within the EGFP gene. We found that paired Cas9 nucleases induced targeted genomic deletion more efficiently and precisely than two TALEN pairs. However, when concurrently supplied with a plasmid template spanning the two DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) within EGFP, TALENs stimulated homology directed repair (HDR) more efficiently than CRISPR/Cas9 and caused fewer targeted genomic deletions. Our data suggest that the choice of genome editing tool should be determined by the desired genome editing outcome. Such a rational approach is likely to benefit research outputs for groups working in fields as diverse as modification of cell lines, to animal models for disease studies, or gene therapy strategies.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 102 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 20%
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Researcher 13 13%
Other 6 6%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Engineering 4 4%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 24 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,240,131
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#655
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,351
of 353,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#94
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 353,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.