↓ Skip to main content

From Bioengineering to CRISPR/Cas9 – A Personal Retrospective of 20 Years of Research in Programmable Genome Targeting

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
From Bioengineering to CRISPR/Cas9 – A Personal Retrospective of 20 Years of Research in Programmable Genome Targeting
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2018.00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Albert Jeltsch

Abstract

Genome targeting of restriction enzymes and DNA methyltransferases has many important applications including genome and epigenome editing. 15-20 years ago, my group was involved in the development of approaches for programmable genome targeting, aiming to connect enzymes with an oligodeoxynucleotide (ODN), which could form a sequence-specific triple helix at the genomic target site. Importantly, the target site of such enzyme-ODN conjugate could be varied simply by altering the ODN sequence promising great applicative values. However, this approach was facing many problems including the preparation and purification of the enzyme-ODN conjugates, their efficient delivery into cells, slow kinetics of triple helix formation and the requirement of a poly-purine target site sequence. Hence, for several years genome and epigenome editing approaches mainly were based on Zinc fingers and TAL proteins as targeting devices. More recently, CRISPR/Cas systems were discovered, which use a bound RNA for genome targeting that forms an RNA/DNA duplex with one DNA strand of the target site. These systems combine all potential advantages of the once imagined enzyme-ODN conjugates and avoid all main disadvantageous. Consequently, the application of CRISPR/Cas in genome and epigenome editing has exploded in recent years. We can draw two important conclusions from this example of research history. First, evolution still is the better bioengineer than humans and, whenever tested in parallel, natural solutions outcompete engineered ones. Second, CRISPR/Cas system were discovered in pure, curiosity driven, basic research, highlighting that it is basic, bottom-up research paving the way for fundamental innovation.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 24%
Philosophy 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 35%
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 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#16,357,504
of 24,093,053 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#5,869
of 12,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,188
of 447,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#69
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,093,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,936 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 447,786 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.