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: CRISPR-Cas9
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 11 |
| Book title |
Fungal Genomics
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-7804-5_11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-7803-8, 978-1-4939-7804-5
|
| Authors |
Jakob B. Hoof, Christina S. Nødvig, Uffe H. Mortensen, Hoof, Jakob B., Nødvig, Christina S., Mortensen, Uffe H. |
| Abstract |
In the present chapter, we present the protocols and guidelines to facilitate implementation of CRISPR-Cas9 technology in fungi where few or no genetic tools are in place. Hence, we firstly explain how to identify dominant markers for genetic transformation. Secondly, we provide a guide for construction of Cas9/sgRNA episomal expression vectors. Thirdly, we present how to mutagenize reporter genes to explore the efficiency of CRISPR-Cas9 in the relevant fungus and to ease subsequent CRISPR-mediated genetic engineering. Lastly, we describe how to make CRISPR-mediated marker-dependent and marker-free gene targeting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 4% |
| Researcher | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 19 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 18% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,980,413
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,313
of 13,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,675
of 442,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#869
of 1,499 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,206 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 442,629 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.