↓ Skip to main content

A simple and cost-effective method for screening of CRISPR/Cas9-induced homozygous/biallelic mutants

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
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
A simple and cost-effective method for screening of CRISPR/Cas9-induced homozygous/biallelic mutants
Published in
Plant Methods, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13007-018-0305-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jinggong Guo, Kun Li, Lifeng Jin, Rui Xu, Kaiting Miao, Fengbo Yang, Chaoya Qi, Lin Zhang, Jose R. Botella, Ran Wang, Yuchen Miao

Abstract

The CRISPR/Cas9 system is being used for genome editing purposes by many research groups in multiple plant species. Traditional sequencing methods to identify homozygous mutants are time-consuming, laborious and expensive. We have developed a method to screen CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutants through Mutation Sites Based Specific Primers Polymerase Chain Reaction (MSBSP-PCR). The MSBSP-PCR method was successfully used to identify homozygous/biallelic mutants in Nicotiana tabacum and Arabidopsis thaliana, and we speculate that it can be used for the identification of CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutants in other plant species. Compared to traditional sequencing methods, MSBSP-PCR is simpler, faster and cheaper. The MSBSP-PCR method is simple to implement and can save time and cost in the screening of CRISPR/Cas9-induced homozygous/biallelic mutants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 18%
Student > Master 18 16%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 5 5%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 24 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 26%
Environmental Science 1 <1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 <1%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,794,966
of 25,163,238 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#493
of 1,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,766
of 337,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#15
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,163,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 337,946 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.