↓ Skip to main content

Protein stability regulators screening assay (Pro-SRSA): protein degradation meets the CRISPR–Cas9 library

Overview of attention for article published in Ai zheng Aizheng Chinese journal of cancer, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Protein stability regulators screening assay (Pro-SRSA): protein degradation meets the CRISPR–Cas9 library
Published in
Ai zheng Aizheng Chinese journal of cancer, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40880-016-0125-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuanzhong Wu, Tiebang Kang

Abstract

The regulation of protein stability is a fundamental issue for biophysical processes, but there has not previously been a convenient and unbiased method of identifying regulators of protein stability. However, as reported in the article entitled "A genome-scale CRISPR-Cas9 screening method for protein stability reveals novel regulators of Cdc25A," recently published in Cell Discovery, our team developed a protein stability regulators screening assay (Pro-SRSA) by combining the whole-genome clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats Cas9 (CRISPR-Cas9) library with a dual-fluorescence-based protein stability reporter and high-throughput sequencing to screen for regulators of protein stability. Based on our findings, we are confident that this efficient and unbiased screening method at the genome scale will be used by researchers worldwide to identify regulators of protein stability.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 31%
Researcher 3 19%
Other 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%

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 01 July 2016.
All research outputs
#4,186,631
of 7,974,292 outputs
Outputs from Ai zheng Aizheng Chinese journal of cancer
#66
of 162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,620
of 260,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ai zheng Aizheng Chinese journal of cancer
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,974,292 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 162 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 260,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.