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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Genetic Screen for Impaired Systemic RNAi Highlights the Crucial Role of DICER-LIKE 2
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Plant Physiology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1104/pp.17.01181 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christelle Taochy, Nial R. Gursanscky, Jiangling Cao, Stephen J. Fletcher, Uwe Dressel, Neena Mitter, Matthew R. Tucker, Anna M.G. Koltunow, John L. Bowman, Hervé Vaucheret, Bernard J. Carroll |
| Abstract |
Post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) of transgenes involves abundant 21 nt small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and low abundance 22 nt siRNAs produced from double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) by DCL4 and DCL2, respectively. However, DCL2 facilitates the recruitment of RNA-DEPENDENT RNA POLYMERASE 6 (RDR6) to ARGONAUTE 1 (AGO1)-derived cleavage products, resulting in more efficient amplification of secondary and transitive dsRNA and siRNAs. Here, we describe a reporter system where RDR6-dependent PTGS is initiated by restricted expression of an inverted-repeat dsRNA specifically in the root tip, allowing a genetic screen to identify mutants impaired in RDR6-dependent systemic PTGS. Our screen identified dcl2 but not dcl4 mutants. Moreover, grafting experiments showed that DCL2, but not DCL4, is required in both the source rootstock and recipient shoot tissue for efficient RDR6-dependent systemic PTGS. Furthermore, dcl4 rootstocks produced more DCL2-dependent 22 nt siRNAs than wild type and showed enhanced systemic movement of PTGS to grafted shoots. Thus, along with its role in recruiting RDR6 for further amplification of PTGS, DCL2 is crucial for RDR6-dependent systemic PTGS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 27% |
| Mexico | 1 | 9% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 36 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 25% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 21 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,566,492
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Plant Physiology
#2,993
of 11,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,080
of 318,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Physiology
#61
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,627 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 318,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.