↓ Skip to main content

Genome Editing in Animals

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Genome Editing in Animals'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Construction and Evaluation of Zinc Finger Nucleases
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Current Overview of TALEN Construction Systems
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 CRISPR/Cas9
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 Computational Prediction of CRISPR/Cas9 Target Sites Reveals Potential Off-Target Risks in Human and Mouse
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Genome Editing of Mouse by Cytoplasmic Injection
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 Genome Editing in Mouse Zygotes and Embryonic Stem Cells by Introducing SgRNA/Cas9 Expressing Plasmids
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Genome Editing in Mouse and Rat by Electroporation
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 Generation of Knock-in Mouse by Genome Editing
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Genome Editing of Rat
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Gene Targeting in Rabbits: Single-Step Generation of Knock-out Rabbits by Microinjection of CRISPR/Cas9 Plasmids
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Genome Editing of Pig
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 Genome Editing of Monkey
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Genome Editing Mediated by Primordial Germ Cell in Chicken
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Targeted Knockin of Exogenous Reporter Genes in Zebrafish
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 Genome Editing of Medaka
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 A Simple Protocol for Loss-of-Function Analysis in Xenopus tropicalis Founders Using the CRISPR-Cas System
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Genome Editing of Silkworms
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 18 Genome Editing in the Cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus
  20. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 19 Genome Editing of the Ascidian Ciona intestinalis with TALE Nuclease
  21. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 20 Genome Editing of C. elegans
Attention for Chapter 16: A Simple Protocol for Loss-of-Function Analysis in Xenopus tropicalis Founders Using the CRISPR-Cas System
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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.
Chapter title
A Simple Protocol for Loss-of-Function Analysis in Xenopus tropicalis Founders Using the CRISPR-Cas System
Chapter number 16
Book title
Genome Editing in Animals
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7128-2_16
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7127-5, 978-1-4939-7128-2
Authors

Sakane, Yuto, Suzuki, Ken-ich T., Yamamoto, Takashi, Yuto Sakane, Ken-ich T. Suzuki, Takashi Yamamoto

Editors

Izuho Hatada

Abstract

Xenopus tropicalis is a versatile model organism for studying basic biology such as developmental biology and cell biology, and for biomedical research on human diseases. Current genome editing techniques enable researchers to easily perform gene targeting in various animals. Among them, gene knockout using the Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)-CRISPR-associated (Cas) (CRISPR-Cas) system has recently become an indispensable strategy for loss-of-function analysis in vivo. Because of its ease of use, time, and cost efficiencies, CRISPR-Cas has also been applied to X. tropicalis where the gene disruption is highly efficient. In this chapter, we introduce a simple CRISPR-Cas system protocol for gene disruption in X. tropicalis. Based on our protocol, researchers can generate knock-out phenotypes within the shortest of timeframes, a week, and analyze genes of interest in founder generation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 5 23%
Professor 4 18%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 23%
Engineering 2 9%
Mathematics 1 5%
Unknown 7 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 March 2018.
All research outputs
#13,323,680
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#3,486
of 13,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,029
of 316,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#48
of 280 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,149 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 316,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 280 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.