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 |
Factors influencing the efficiency of generating genetically engineered pigs by nuclear transfer: multi-factorial analysis of a large data set
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Biotechnology, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6750-13-43 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mayuko Kurome, Ludwig Geistlinger, Barbara Kessler, Valeri Zakhartchenko, Nikolai Klymiuk, Annegret Wuensch, Anne Richter, Andrea Baehr, Katrin Kraehe, Katinka Burkhardt, Krzysztof Flisikowski, Tatiana Flisikowska, Claudia Merkl, Martina Landmann, Marina Durkovic, Alexander Tschukes, Simone Kraner, Dirk Schindelhauer, Tobias Petri, Alexander Kind, Hiroshi Nagashima, Angelika Schnieke, Ralf Zimmer, Eckhard Wolf |
| Abstract |
Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) using genetically engineered donor cells is currently the most widely used strategy to generate tailored pig models for biomedical research. Although this approach facilitates a similar spectrum of genetic modifications as in rodent models, the outcome in terms of live cloned piglets is quite variable. In this study, we aimed at a comprehensive analysis of environmental and experimental factors that are substantially influencing the efficiency of generating genetically engineered pigs. Based on a considerably large data set from 274 SCNT experiments (in total 18,649 reconstructed embryos transferred into 193 recipients), performed over a period of three years, we assessed the relative contribution of season, type of genetic modification, donor cell source, number of cloning rounds, and pre-selection of cloned embryos for early development to the cloning efficiency. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 21% |
| Researcher | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 19% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
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 20 May 2013.
All research outputs
#19,292,491
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biotechnology
#770
of 937 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,409
of 197,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biotechnology
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 937 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 197,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.