↓ Skip to main content

Lipid transfer proteins: classification, nomenclature, structure, and function

Overview of attention for article published in Planta, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
173 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 Mendeley
Title
Lipid transfer proteins: classification, nomenclature, structure, and function
Published in
Planta, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00425-016-2585-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tiina A. Salminen, Kristina Blomqvist, Johan Edqvist

Abstract

The non-specific lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) constitute a large protein family found in all land plants. They are small proteins characterized by a tunnel-like hydrophobic cavity, which makes them suitable for binding and transporting various lipids. The LTPs are abundantly expressed in most tissues. In general, they are synthesized with an N-terminal signal peptide that localizes the protein to spaces exterior to the plasma membrane. The in vivo functions of LTPs are still disputed, although evidence has accumulated for a role in the synthesis of lipid barrier polymers, such as cuticular waxes, suberin, and sporopollenin. There are also reports suggesting that LTPs are involved in signaling during pathogen attacks. LTPs are considered as key proteins for the plant's survival and colonization of land. In this review, we aim to present an overview of the current status of LTP research and also to discuss potential future applications of these proteins. We update the knowledge on 3D structures and lipid binding and review the most recent data from functional investigations, such as from knockout or overexpressing experiments. We also propose and argument for a novel system for the classification and naming of the LTPs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 223 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 17%
Student > Master 27 12%
Researcher 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 66 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 69 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 50 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 2%
Unspecified 4 2%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 73 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,861,841
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Planta
#1,785
of 2,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,069
of 340,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Planta
#13
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,721 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 340,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.