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
| Title |
Developments in the Tools and Methodologies of Synthetic Biology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fbioe.2014.00060 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard Kelwick, James T. MacDonald, Alexander J. Webb, Paul Freemont |
| Abstract |
Synthetic biology is principally concerned with the rational design and engineering of biologically based parts, devices, or systems. However, biological systems are generally complex and unpredictable, and are therefore, intrinsically difficult to engineer. In order to address these fundamental challenges, synthetic biology is aiming to unify a "body of knowledge" from several foundational scientific fields, within the context of a set of engineering principles. This shift in perspective is enabling synthetic biologists to address complexity, such that robust biological systems can be designed, assembled, and tested as part of a biological design cycle. The design cycle takes a forward-design approach in which a biological system is specified, modeled, analyzed, assembled, and its functionality tested. At each stage of the design cycle, an expanding repertoire of tools is being developed. In this review, we highlight several of these tools in terms of their applications and benefits to the synthetic biology community. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 10 | 32% |
| United States | 3 | 10% |
| Denmark | 2 | 6% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 6% |
| Kazakhstan | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 74% |
| Scientists | 8 | 26% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 363 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Belgium | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Taiwan | 1 | <1% |
| Lithuania | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 348 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 82 | 23% |
| Researcher | 80 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 57 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 53 | 15% |
| Professor | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 35 | 10% |
| Unknown | 45 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 131 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 100 | 28% |
| Engineering | 22 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 9 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 32 | 9% |
| Unknown | 61 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,619,202
of 24,967,663 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#168
of 8,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,947
of 374,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#1
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,967,663 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,178 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 374,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 99% of its contemporaries.