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 |
Genome Editing in Sugarcane: Challenges Ahead
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Plant Science, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpls.2016.01542 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chakravarthi Mohan |
| Abstract |
Genome editing opens new and unique opportunities for researchers to enhance crop production. Until 2013, the zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) were the key tools used for genome editing applications. The advent of RNA-guided engineered nucleases - the type II clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas9 (CRISPR-associated) system from Streptococcus pyogenes holds great potential since it is simple, effective and more versatile than ZFNs and TALENs. CRISPR/Cas9 system has already been successfully employed in several crop plants. Use of these techniques is in its infant stage in sugarcane. Jung and Altpeter (2016) have reported TALEN mediated approach for the first time to reduce lignin content in sugarcane to make it amenable for biofuel production. This is so far the only report describing genome editing in sugarcane. Large genome size, polyploidy, low transformation efficiency, transgene silencing and lack of high throughput screening techniques are certainly great challenges for genome editing in sugarcane which would be discussed in detail in this review. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 20% |
| Researcher | 16 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 14% |
| Professor | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 29 | 31% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 18 | 19% |
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 13 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,346,264
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#16,192
of 20,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,486
of 319,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#281
of 397 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 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 20,304 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. 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 319,475 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 397 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.