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 |
The case for decoupling assembly and submission standards to maintain a more flexible registry of biological parts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Biological Engineering, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1754-1611-8-28 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Razan N Alnahhas, Ben Slater, Yunle Huang, Catherine Mortensen, Jordan W Monk, Yousef Okasheh, Marco D Howard, Neil R Gottel, Michael J Hammerling, Jeffrey E Barrick |
| Abstract |
The Registry of Standard Biological Parts only accepts genetic parts compatible with the RFC 10 BioBrick format. This combined assembly and submission standard requires that four unique restriction enzyme sites must not occur in the DNA sequence encoding a part. We present evidence that this requirement places a nontrivial burden on iGEM teams developing large and novel parts. We further argue that the emergence of inexpensive DNA synthesis and versatile assembly methods reduces the utility of coupling submission and assembly standards and propose a submission standard that is compatible with current quality control strategies while nearly eliminating sequence constraints on submitted parts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 8 | 62% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 54% |
| Members of the public | 6 | 46% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| China | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 21 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 36% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 29% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 21% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 64% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 1 | 4% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 16 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,041,569
of 24,063,285 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biological Engineering
#28
of 286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,844
of 369,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biological Engineering
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,063,285 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. 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 369,693 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 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.