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 |
CRISPulator: a discrete simulation tool for pooled genetic screens
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12859-017-1759-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tamas Nagy, Martin Kampmann |
| Abstract |
The rapid adoption of CRISPR technology has enabled biomedical researchers to conduct CRISPR-based genetic screens in a pooled format. The quality of results from such screens is heavily dependent on the selection of optimal screen design parameters, which also affects cost and scalability. However, the cost and effort of implementing pooled screens prohibits experimental testing of a large number of parameters. We present CRISPulator, a Monte Carlo method-based computational tool that simulates the impact of screen parameters on the robustness of screen results, thereby enabling users to build intuition and insights that will inform their experimental strategy. CRISPulator enables the simulation of screens relying on either CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) or CRISPR nuclease (CRISPRn). Pooled screens based on cell growth/survival, as well as fluorescence-activated cell sorting according to fluorescent reporter phenotypes are supported. CRISPulator is freely available online ( http://crispulator.ucsf.edu ). CRISPulator facilitates the design of pooled genetic screens by enabling the exploration of a large space of experimental parameters in silico, rather than through costly experimental trial and error. We illustrate its power by deriving non-obvious rules for optimal screen design. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 5 | 45% |
| Germany | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 64% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 36% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 25% |
| Researcher | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 30 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 27 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#5,249,562
of 24,862,067 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,904
of 7,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,236
of 319,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#20
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,862,067 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,597 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 319,494 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.