↓ Skip to main content

Transgenic Ascidians

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 2: Microinjection of Exogenous Nucleic Acids into Eggs: Ciona Species
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 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
Microinjection of Exogenous Nucleic Acids into Eggs: Ciona Species
Chapter number 2
Book title
Transgenic Ascidians
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-7545-2_2
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-9-81-107544-5, 978-9-81-107545-2
Authors

Kenji Kobayashi, Yutaka Satou, Kobayashi, Kenji, Satou, Yutaka

Abstract

Microinjection is a common technique used to deliver nucleic acids into eggs and embryos in Ciona species. There are three Ciona species that are commonly used for research-Ciona intestinalis type A (C. robusta), C. intestinalis type B (C. intestinalis), and C. savignyi. Here, we present the microinjection methods using eggs and embryos of C. intestinalis type A and C. savignyi; however, our methods would also be applicable to eggs and embryos of C. intestinalis type B. Microinjection is a classical and widely used delivery method, which involves the use of a glass micropipette, a hollow glass needle with a microscopic tip, to inject nucleic acids into eggs and embryos under a stereo microscope. The required amount of nucleic acids is much smaller for microinjection than for electroporation, another delivery method. Proteins, and other chemicals, such as fluorescent dye, can be introduced with nucleic acids using a microinjection.

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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 25%
Student > Bachelor 1 25%
Researcher 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 50%
Unspecified 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,584,037
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#1,900
of 4,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,068
of 442,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#61
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 442,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.