| Title |
Base editing of haematopoietic stem cells rescues sickle cell disease in mice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature, June 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41586-021-03609-w |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gregory A. Newby, Jonathan S. Yen, Kaitly J. Woodard, Thiyagaraj Mayuranathan, Cicera R. Lazzarotto, Yichao Li, Heather Sheppard-Tillman, Shaina N. Porter, Yu Yao, Kalin Mayberry, Kelcee A. Everette, Yoonjeong Jang, Christopher J. Podracky, Elizabeth Thaman, Christophe Lechauve, Akshay Sharma, Jordana M. Henderson, Michelle F. Richter, Kevin T. Zhao, Shannon M. Miller, Tina Wang, Luke W. Koblan, Anton P. McCaffrey, John F. Tisdale, Theodosia A. Kalfa, Shondra M. Pruett-Miller, Shengdar Q. Tsai, Mitchell J. Weiss, David R. Liu |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 803 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 265 | 33% |
| Spain | 43 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 38 | 5% |
| India | 21 | 3% |
| Canada | 17 | 2% |
| Australia | 17 | 2% |
| Germany | 13 | 2% |
| France | 11 | 1% |
| Japan | 11 | 1% |
| Other | 106 | 13% |
| Unknown | 261 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 424 | 53% |
| Scientists | 329 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 35 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 15 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 381 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 381 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 52 | 14% |
| Researcher | 47 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 6% |
| Professor | 13 | 3% |
| Other | 42 | 11% |
| Unknown | 170 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 103 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 10 | 3% |
| Engineering | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 33 | 9% |
| Unknown | 180 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 829. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#22,843
of 25,930,027 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#2,210
of 99,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#886
of 463,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#89
of 949 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,930,027 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 99,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 463,413 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 949 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 90% of its contemporaries.