↓ Skip to main content

Gene doctoring: a method for recombineering in laboratory and pathogenic Escherichia colistrains

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, December 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
148 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
252 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
Gene doctoring: a method for recombineering in laboratory and pathogenic Escherichia colistrains
Published in
BMC Microbiology, December 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2180-9-252
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J Lee, Lewis EH Bingle, Karin Heurlier, Mark J Pallen, Charles W Penn, Stephen JW Busby, Jon L Hobman

Abstract

Homologous recombination mediated by the lambda-Red genes is a common method for making chromosomal modifications in Escherichia coli. Several protocols have been developed that differ in the mechanisms by which DNA, carrying regions homologous to the chromosome, are delivered into the cell. A common technique is to electroporate linear DNA fragments into cells. Alternatively, DNA fragments are generated in vivo by digestion of a donor plasmid with a nuclease that does not cleave the host genome. In both cases the lambda-Red gene products recombine homologous regions carried on the linear DNA fragments with the chromosome. We have successfully used both techniques to generate chromosomal mutations in E. coli K-12 strains. However, we have had limited success with these lambda-Red based recombination techniques in pathogenic E. coli strains, which has led us to develop an enhanced protocol for recombineering in such strains.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 235 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 79 31%
Researcher 50 20%
Student > Bachelor 30 12%
Student > Master 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 4%
Other 34 13%
Unknown 25 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 106 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 65 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 17 7%
Engineering 9 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 3%
Other 19 8%
Unknown 28 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 February 2012.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#2,468
of 3,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,581
of 175,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#17
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 175,988 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.