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 |
An alternative novel tool for DNA editing without target sequence limitation: the structure-guided nuclease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13059-016-1038-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shu Xu, Shasha Cao, Bingjie Zou, Yunyun Yue, Chun Gu, Xin Chen, Pei Wang, Xiaohua Dong, Zheng Xiang, Kai Li, Minsheng Zhu, Qingshun Zhao, Guohua Zhou |
| Abstract |
Engineered endonucleases are a powerful tool for editing DNA. However, sequence preferences may limit their application. We engineer a structure-guided endonuclease (SGN) composed of flap endonuclease-1 (FEN-1), which recognizes the 3' flap structure, and the cleavage domain of Fok I (Fn1), which cleaves DNA strands. The SGN recognizes the target DNA on the basis of the 3' flap structure formed between the target and the guide DNA (gDNA) and cut the target through its Fn1 dimerization. Our results show that the SGN, guided by a pair of gDNAs, cleaves transgenic reporter gene and endogenous genes in zebrafish embryonic genome. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 | 3 | 13% |
| France | 2 | 8% |
| Australia | 2 | 8% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| China | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 58% |
| Scientists | 8 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 108 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 19% |
| Researcher | 21 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 40 | 37% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 22 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 29 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,352,491
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#1,059
of 4,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,909
of 329,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#20
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. 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 329,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 62% of its contemporaries.