↓ Skip to main content

Novel Genome-Editing Tools to Model and Correct Primary Immunodeficiencies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, May 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Novel Genome-Editing Tools to Model and Correct Primary Immunodeficiencies
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00250
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa M. Ott de Bruin, Stefano Volpi, Kiran Musunuru

Abstract

Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) and other severe non-SCID primary immunodeficiencies (non-SCID PID) can be treated by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) transplantation, but when histocompatibility leukocyte antigen-matched donors are lacking, this can be a high-risk procedure. Correcting the patient's own HSCs with gene therapy offers an attractive alternative. Gene therapies currently being used in clinical settings insert a functional copy of the entire gene by means of a viral vector. With this treatment, severe complications may result due to integration within oncogenes. A promising alternative is the use of endonucleases such as ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPR/Cas9 to introduce a double-stranded break in the DNA and thus induce homology-directed repair. With these genome-editing tools a correct copy can be inserted in a precisely targeted "safe harbor." They can also be used to correct pathogenic mutations in situ and to develop cellular or animal models needed to study the pathogenic effects of specific genetic defects found in immunodeficient patients. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of these endonucleases in gene correction and modeling with an emphasis on CRISPR/Cas9, which offers the most promise due to its efficacy and versatility.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Unknown 135 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Other 10 7%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 42 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 14%
Engineering 3 2%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 26 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,954,173
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#3,006
of 31,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,342
of 280,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#20
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 280,403 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.