↓ Skip to main content

Just how Lamarckian is CRISPR-Cas immunity: the continuum of evolvability mechanisms

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#28 of 533)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Just how Lamarckian is CRISPR-Cas immunity: the continuum of evolvability mechanisms
Published in
Biology Direct, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13062-016-0111-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eugene V. Koonin, Yuri I. Wolf

Abstract

The CRISPR-Cas system of prokaryotic adaptive immunity displays features of a mechanism for directional, Lamarckian evolution. Indeed, this system modifies a specific locus in a bacterial or archaeal genome by inserting a piece of foreign DNA into a CRISPR array which results in acquired, heritable resistance to the cognate selfish element. A key element of the Lamarckian scheme is the specificity and directionality of the mutational process whereby an environmental cue causes only mutations that provide specific adaptations to the original challenge. In the case of adaptive immunity, the specificity of mutations is equivalent to self-nonself discrimination. Recent studies on the CRISPR mechanism have shown that the levels of discrimination can substantially differ such that in some CRISPR-Cas variants incorporation of DNA is random whereas discrimination occurs by selection of cells that carry cognate inserts. In other systems, a higher level of specificity appears to be achieved via specialized mechanisms. These findings emphasize the continuity between random and directed mutations and the critical importance of evolved mechanisms that govern the mutational process. This article has been reviewed by Yitzhak Pilpel, Martijn Huynen, and Bojan Zagrovic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 89 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 20%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 7%
Psychology 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 16 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 01 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,247,398
of 25,175,727 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#28
of 533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,556
of 304,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,175,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 304,924 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.