| Title |
A comparison between constitutive and inducible transgenic expression of the PhRIP I gene for broad-spectrum resistance against phytopathogens in potato
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biotechnology Techniques, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10529-017-2335-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Romel Gonzales-Salazar, Bianca Cecere, Michelina Ruocco, Rosa Rao, Giandomenico Corrado |
| Abstract |
To engineer broad spectrum resistance in potato using different expression strategies. The previously identified Ribosome-Inactivating Protein from Phytolacca heterotepala was expressed in potato under a constitutive or a wound-inducible promoter. Leaves and tubers of the plants constitutively expressing the transgene were resistant to Botrytis cinerea and Rhizoctonia solani, respectively. The wound-inducible promoter was useful in driving the expression upon wounding and fungal damage, and conferred resistance to B. cinerea. The observed differences between the expression strategies are discussed considering the benefits and features offered by the two systems. Evidence is provided of the possible impact of promoter sequences to engineer BSR in plants, highlighting that the selection of a suitable expression strategy has to balance specific needs and target species. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 28% |
| Researcher | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 April 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology Techniques
#2,493
of 2,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,218
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology Techniques
#20
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,762 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 323,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.