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 |
Guide Picker is a comprehensive design tool for visualizing and selecting guides for CRISPR experiments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12859-017-1581-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Soren H. Hough, Kris Kancleris, Leigh Brody, Neil Humphryes-Kirilov, Joseph Wolanski, Keith Dunaway, Ayokunmi Ajetunmobi, Victor Dillard |
| Abstract |
Guide Picker ( https://www.deskgen.com/guide-picker/ ) serves as a meta tool for designing CRISPR experiments by presenting ten different guide RNA scoring functions in one simple graphical interface. It allows investigators to simultaneously visualize and sort through every guide targeting the protein-coding regions of any mouse or human gene. Utilizing a multidimensional graphical display featuring two plots and four axes, Guide Picker can analyze all guides while filtering based on four different criteria at a time. Guide Picker further facilitates the CRISPR design process by using pre-computed scores for all guides, thereby offering rapid guide RNA generation and selection. The ease-of-use of Guide Picker complements CRISPR itself, matching a powerful and modular biological system with a flexible online web tool that can be used in a variety of genome editing experimental contexts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 23% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 08 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,426,768
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#691
of 7,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,844
of 309,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#10
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 309,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.