| Title |
Mechanisms of self-incompatibility in flowering plants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, December 2001
|
| DOI | 10.1007/pl00000832 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
N. F. Silva, D. R. Goring |
| Abstract |
Self-incompatibility is a widespread mechanism in flowering plants that prevents inbreeding and promotes outcrossing. The self-incompatibility response is genetically controlled by one or more multi-allelic loci, and relies on a series of complex cellular interactions between the self-incompatible pollen and pistil. Although self-incompatibility functions ultimately to prevent self-fertilization, flowering plants have evolved several unique mechanisms for rejecting the self-incompatible pollen. The self-incompatibility system in the Solanaceae makes use of a multi-allelic RNase in the pistil to block incompatible pollen tube growth. In contrast, the Papaveraceae system appears to have complex cellular responses such as calcium fluxes, actin rearrangements, and programmed cell death occurring in the incompatible pollen tube. Finally, the Brassicaceae system has a receptor kinase signalling pathway activated in the pistil leading to pollen rejection. This review highlights the recent advances made towards understanding the cellular mechanisms involved in these self-incompatibility systems and discusses the striking differences between these systems. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 127 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 15% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 33 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 68 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 19 | 15% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 36 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 January 2017.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#2,145
of 5,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,690
of 132,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 132,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.