↓ Skip to main content

CRISPR library designer (CLD): software for multispecies design of single guide RNA libraries

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
31 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
CRISPR library designer (CLD): software for multispecies design of single guide RNA libraries
Published in
Genome Biology, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13059-016-0915-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florian Heigwer, Tianzuo Zhan, Marco Breinig, Jan Winter, Dirk Brügemann, Svenja Leible, Michael Boutros

Abstract

Genetic screens using CRISPR/Cas9 are a powerful method for the functional analysis of genomes. Here we describe CRISPR library designer (CLD), an integrated bioinformatics application for the design of custom single guide RNA (sgRNA) libraries for all organisms with annotated genomes. CLD is suitable for the design of libraries using modified CRISPR enzymes and targeting non-coding regions. To demonstrate its utility, we perform a pooled screen for modulators of the TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand (TRAIL) pathway using a custom library of 12,471 sgRNAs. CLD predicts a high fraction of functional sgRNAs and is publicly available at https://github.com/boutroslab/cld .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Argentina 2 1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 180 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 19%
Student > Master 17 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Other 12 6%
Other 39 20%
Unknown 31 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 59 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 29%
Engineering 9 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 4%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 36 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,207,831
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#907
of 4,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,657
of 314,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#18
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 4,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 314,827 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 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.