↓ Skip to main content

A Novel and Efficient Method for Bacteria Genome Editing Employing both CRISPR/Cas9 and an Antibiotic Resistance Cassette

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 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
A Novel and Efficient Method for Bacteria Genome Editing Employing both CRISPR/Cas9 and an Antibiotic Resistance Cassette
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00812
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong Zhang, Qiu-Xiang Cheng, Ai-Min Liu, Guo-Ping Zhao, Jin Wang

Abstract

As Cas9-mediated cleavage requires both protospacer and protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) sequences, it is impossible to employ the CRISPR/Cas9 system to directly edit genomic sites without available PAM sequences nearby. Here, we optimized the CRISPR/Cas9 system and developed an innovative two-step strategy for efficient genome editing of any sites, which did not rely on the availability of PAM sequences. An antibiotic resistance cassette was employed as both a positive and a negative selection marker. By integrating the optimized two-plasmid CRISPR/Cas system and donor DNA, we achieved gene insertion and point mutation with high efficiency in Escherichia coli, and importantly, obtained clean mutants with no other unwanted mutations. Moreover, genome editing of essential genes was successfully achieved using this approach with a few modifications. Therefore, our newly developed method is PAM-independent and can be used to edit any genomic loci, and we hope this method can also be used for efficient genome editing in other organisms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 <1%
Unknown 224 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 18%
Researcher 35 16%
Student > Bachelor 28 12%
Student > Master 25 11%
Other 9 4%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 58 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 79 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 4%
Engineering 8 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 2%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 64 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 11 May 2020.
All research outputs
#4,259,103
of 25,515,042 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#3,889
of 29,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,607
of 325,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#125
of 519 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,515,042 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,480 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 325,273 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 519 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.