↓ Skip to main content

CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing induces exon skipping by alternative splicing or exon deletion

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology (Online Edition), June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
104 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
253 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing induces exon skipping by alternative splicing or exon deletion
Published in
Genome Biology (Online Edition), June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13059-017-1237-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haiwei Mou, Jordan L. Smith, Lingtao Peng, Hao Yin, Jill Moore, Xiao-Ou Zhang, Chun-Qing Song, Ankur Sheel, Qiongqiong Wu, Deniz M. Ozata, Yingxiang Li, Daniel G. Anderson, Charles P. Emerson, Erik J. Sontheimer, Melissa J. Moore, Zhiping Weng, Wen Xue

Abstract

CRISPR is widely used to disrupt gene function by inducing small insertions and deletions. Here, we show that some single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs) can induce exon skipping or large genomic deletions that delete exons. For example, CRISPR-mediated editing of β-catenin exon 3, which encodes an autoinhibitory domain, induces partial skipping of the in-frame exon and nuclear accumulation of β-catenin. A single sgRNA can induce small insertions or deletions that partially alter splicing or unexpected larger deletions that remove exons. Exon skipping adds to the unexpected outcomes that must be accounted for, and perhaps taken advantage of, in CRISPR experiments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 104 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 253 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 251 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 72 28%
Researcher 46 18%
Student > Master 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Other 10 4%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 30 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 94 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 5%
Engineering 7 3%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 28 11%
Unknown 37 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 17 February 2021.
All research outputs
#394,324
of 19,166,896 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#301
of 3,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,513
of 282,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,166,896 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,805 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 282,889 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them