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
| Chapter title |
Pooled shRNA Screenings: Experimental Approach.
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 21 |
| Book title |
Pancreatic Cancer
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-62703-287-2_21 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-62703-286-5, 978-1-62703-287-2
|
| Authors |
Ruth Rodriguez-Barrueco, Netonia Marshall, Jose M. Silva, Rodriguez-Barrueco, Ruth, Marshall, Netonia, Silva, Jose M. |
| Abstract |
RNA interference (RNAi) has emerged as a powerful genetic strategy to functionally interrogate the entire genome by loss-of-function studies. In the last years, several arrayed shRNA libraries that can silence almost all the human genome have been developed. The generation of new and more efficient shRNA plasmids has allowed performing genetic screens in a pooled fashion and provides the opportunity to investigate the entire genome finding relevant genes to any biological process. In this chapter, the pipeline and methods to perform a pooled shRNA screen are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 States | 1 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 28% |
| Researcher | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
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 31 January 2013.
All research outputs
#15,262,171
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#5,294
of 13,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,442
of 280,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#174
of 340 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,046 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 280,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 340 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.