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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Chapter title |
Creation of transgenic lines using microparticle bombardment methods.
|
|---|---|
| Book title |
C. elegans
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, September 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1385/1-59745-151-7:93 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-58829-597-2, 978-1-59745-151-2
|
| Authors |
Praitis V, Vida Praitis, Praitis, Vida |
| Abstract |
Introduction of exogenous DNA into Caenorhabditis elegans is important for examining the expression of altered or reporter gene constructs, rescuing mutant genes, and studying gene function in vivo. Until recently, germ-line injection was the most commonly used method for transforming C. elegans strains. This chapter describes four different microparticle bombardment methods used to transform C. elegans with exogenous DNA. We include a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of using microparticle bombardment for transformation, list cotransformation markers that have been used successfully in microparticle bombardment experiments, and discuss transformation efficiency. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 31% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 19% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
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 22 October 2019.
All research outputs
#7,453,126
of 22,785,242 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#2,316
of 13,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,516
of 67,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,785,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,094 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 67,514 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.