↓ Skip to main content

Cell Press

Article Metrics

Inhibition of CRISPR-Cas9 with Bacteriophage Proteins

Overview of attention for article published in Cell, December 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
31 news outlets
blogs
8 blogs
twitter
240 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
266 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Inhibition of CRISPR-Cas9 with Bacteriophage Proteins
Published in
Cell, December 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin J. Rauch, Melanie R. Silvis, Judd F. Hultquist, Christopher S. Waters, Michael J. McGregor, Nevan J. Krogan, Joseph Bondy-Denomy, Rauch, Benjamin J, Silvis, Melanie R, Hultquist, Judd F, Waters, Christopher S, McGregor, Michael J, Krogan, Nevan J, Bondy-Denomy, Joseph

Abstract

Bacterial CRISPR-Cas systems utilize sequence-specific RNA-guided nucleases to defend against bacteriophage infection. As a countermeasure, numerous phages are known that produce proteins to block the function of class 1 CRISPR-Cas systems. However, currently no proteins are known to inhibit the widely used class 2 CRISPR-Cas9 system. To find these inhibitors, we searched cas9-containing bacterial genomes for the co-existence of a CRISPR spacer and its target, a potential indicator for CRISPR inhibition. This analysis led to the discovery of four unique type II-A CRISPR-Cas9 inhibitor proteins encoded by Listeria monocytogenes prophages. More than half of L. monocytogenes strains with cas9 contain at least one prophage-encoded inhibitor, suggesting widespread CRISPR-Cas9 inactivation. Two of these inhibitors also blocked the widely used Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 when assayed in Escherichia coli and human cells. These natural Cas9-specific "anti-CRISPRs" present tools that can be used to regulate the genome engineering activities of CRISPR-Cas9.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 240 tweeters 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 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 4%
India 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 248 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 79 30%
Researcher 55 21%
Student > Master 40 15%
Student > Bachelor 30 11%
Student > Postgraduate 18 7%
Other 44 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 119 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 86 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 4%
Unspecified 8 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 3%
Other 36 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 447. 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 26 August 2017.
All research outputs
#10,882
of 8,413,539 outputs
Outputs from Cell
#74
of 9,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,050
of 279,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell
#8
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,413,539 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 279,631 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.