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
| Title |
Rapid Control of Genome Editing in Human Cells by Chemical-Inducible CRISPR-Cas Systems. - PubMed - NCBI
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-7795-6_15 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liu, Kaiwen Ivy, Ramli, Muhammad Nadzim Bin, Sutrisnoh, Norfala-Aliah Binte, Tan, Meng How |
| Abstract |
Genome editing using programmable DNA endonucleases enables the engineering of eukaryotic cells and living organisms with desirable properties or traits. Among the various molecular scissors that have been developed to date, the most versatile and easy-to-use family of nucleases derives from CRISPR-Cas, which exists naturally as an adaptive immune system in bacteria. Recent advances in the CRISPR-Cas technology have expanded our ability to manipulate complex genomes for myriad biomedical and biotechnological applications. Some of these applications are time-sensitive or demand high spatial precision. Here, we describe the use of an inducible CRISPR-Cas9 system, termed iCas, which we have developed to enable rapid and tight control of genome editing in mammalian cells. The iCas system can be switched on or off as desired through the introduction or removal of the small molecule tamoxifen or its related analogs such as 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4-HT). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 16% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 11% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
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 14 May 2018.
All research outputs
#13,596,612
of 23,052,509 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#3,662
of 13,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,164
of 442,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#352
of 1,499 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,052,509 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 13,196 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 70% 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 442,457 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 1,499 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 74% of its contemporaries.