↓ Skip to main content

The Molecular Basis for Attractive Salt-Taste Coding in Drosophila

Overview of attention for article published in Science, June 2013
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
280 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
289 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The Molecular Basis for Attractive Salt-Taste Coding in Drosophila
Published in
Science, June 2013
DOI 10.1126/science.1234133
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yali V. Zhang, Jinfei Ni, Craig Montell

Abstract

Below a certain level, table salt (NaCl) is beneficial for animals, whereas excessive salt is harmful. However, it remains unclear how low- and high-salt taste perceptions are differentially encoded. We identified a salt-taste coding mechanism in Drosophila melanogaster. Flies use distinct types of gustatory receptor neurons (GRNs) to respond to different concentrations of salt. We demonstrated that a member of the newly discovered ionotropic glutamate receptor (IR) family, IR76b, functioned in the detection of low salt and was a Na(+) channel. The loss of IR76b selectively impaired the attractive pathway, leaving salt-aversive GRNs unaffected. Consequently, low salt became aversive. Our work demonstrated that the opposing behavioral responses to low and high salt were determined largely by an elegant bimodal switch system operating in GRNs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 289 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 1%
Portugal 3 1%
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 272 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 24%
Researcher 66 23%
Student > Master 31 11%
Student > Bachelor 21 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 6%
Other 46 16%
Unknown 41 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 149 52%
Neuroscience 50 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 3%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 13 4%
Unknown 44 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 23 September 2013.
All research outputs
#607,049
of 24,694,993 outputs
Outputs from Science
#13,110
of 80,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,351
of 202,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#142
of 846 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,694,993 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 80,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 64.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 202,765 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 846 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.