↓ Skip to main content

Nucleic acids delivery methods for genome editing in zygotes and embryos: the old, the new, and the old-new

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
6 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Nucleic acids delivery methods for genome editing in zygotes and embryos: the old, the new, and the old-new
Published in
Biology Direct, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13062-016-0115-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masahiro Sato, Masato Ohtsuka, Satoshi Watanabe, Channabasavaiah B. Gurumurthy

Abstract

In the recent years, sequence-specific nucleases such as ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPR/Cas9 have revolutionzed the fields of animal genome editing and transgenesis. However, these new techniques require microinjection to deliver nucleic acids into embryos to generate gene-modified animals. Microinjection is a delicate procedure that requires sophisticated equipment and highly trained and experienced technicians. Though over a dozen alternate approaches for nucleic acid delivery into embryos were attempted during the pre-CRISPR era, none of them became routinely used as microinjection. The addition of CRISPR/Cas9 to the genome editing toolbox has propelled the search for novel delivery approaches that can obviate the need for microinjection. Indeed, some groups have recently developed electroporation-based methods that have the potential to radically change animal transgenesis. This review provides an overview of the old and new delivery methods, and discusses various strategies that were attempted during the last three decades. In addition, several of the methods are re-evaluated with respect to their suitability to deliver genome editing components, particularly CRISPR/Cas9, to embryos. Drs. Eugene Koonin and Haruhiko Siomi.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 9 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Engineering 3 3%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 14 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 30 January 2024.
All research outputs
#3,876,307
of 23,253,955 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#158
of 491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,336
of 301,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,253,955 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 301,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.