↓ Skip to main content

Revolutionizing plant biology: multiple ways of genome engineering by CRISPR/Cas

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
patent
5 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
459 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Revolutionizing plant biology: multiple ways of genome engineering by CRISPR/Cas
Published in
Plant Methods, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13007-016-0103-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Schiml, Holger Puchta

Abstract

The precise manipulation of plant genomes relies on the induction of DNA double-strand breaks by site-specific nucleases to initiate DNA repair reactions that are either based on non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homologous recombination (HR). Recently, the CRISPR/Cas system emerged as the most important tool for genome engineering due to its simple structure and its applicability to a wide range of organisms. Here, we review the current status of its various applications in plants, where it is used for the successful generation of stable mutations in a steadily growing number of species through NHEJ. Furthermore, tremendous progress in plant genome engineering by HR was obtained by the setup of replicon mediated and in planta gene targeting techniques. Finally, other complex approaches that rely on the induction of more than one DNA lesion at a time such as paired nickases to avoid off-site effects or controlled genomic deletions are beginning to be applied routinely.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 459 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 442 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 106 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 96 21%
Student > Master 59 13%
Student > Bachelor 54 12%
Professor 21 5%
Other 62 14%
Unknown 61 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 235 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 127 28%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 <1%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 <1%
Computer Science 2 <1%
Other 12 3%
Unknown 76 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,918,003
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#86
of 1,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,313
of 396,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 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 1,082 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. 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 396,721 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.