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 |
Genome Editing in Human Pluripotent Stem Cells
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 12 |
| Book title |
Stem Cell Banking
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-6921-0_12 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-6919-7, 978-1-4939-6921-0
|
| Authors |
Carlson-Stevermer, Jared, Saha, Krishanu, Jared Carlson-Stevermer, Krishanu Saha |
| Editors |
Jeremy M. Crook, Tenneille E. Ludwig |
| Abstract |
Genome editing in human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) enables the generation of reporter lines and knockout cell lines. Zinc finger nucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and CRISPR/Cas9 technology have recently increased the efficiency of proper gene editing by creating double strand breaks (DSB) at defined sequences in the human genome. These systems typically use plasmids to transiently transcribe nucleases within the cell. Here, we describe the process for preparing hPSCs for transient expression of nucleases via electroporation and subsequent analysis to create genetically modified stem cell lines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| Italy | 1 | 17% |
| India | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 142 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 48 | 31% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 79 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 29 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 March 2023.
All research outputs
#8,542,394
of 26,071,599 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#2,632
of 14,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,669
of 326,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#38
of 287 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,071,599 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,517 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 326,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 287 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.