↓ Skip to main content

Identification of candidate resistance genes of cotton against Aspergillus flavus infection using a comparative transcriptomics approach

Overview of attention for article published in Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Identification of candidate resistance genes of cotton against Aspergillus flavus infection using a comparative transcriptomics approach
Published in
Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12298-018-0522-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muthamilarasan Mehanathan, Renesh Bedre, Venkata Mangu, Kanniah Rajasekaran, Deepak Bhatnagar, Niranjan Baisakh

Abstract

A comparative transcriptome analysis was performed using the genes significantly differentially expressed in cotton, corn and peanut in response to aflatoxin producing fungus Aspergillus flavus with an objective of identifying candidate resistance genes in cotton. Two-way analyses identified 732 unique genes to be differentially regulated by the fungus with only 26 genes common across all three crops that were considered candidate A. flavus resistance genes with an assumption that these genes have specific roles in conferring the resistance trait. Genes of membrane cellular component involved in DNA binding with involvement in defense responses were highly represented among the differentially expressed unique genes. Most (six) of these genes coded for 2-oxoglutarate (2OG) and Fe(II)-dependent oxygenase superfamily proteins. Genes encoding helix loop helix protein, alcohol dehydrogenase and UDP glycosylation transferase which were upregulated in response to both atoxigenic and toxigenic strains of A. flavus, could be potential resistance candidate genes for downstream functional manipulation to confer resistance.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 31%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 23%
Researcher 2 15%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 31%
Unknown 4 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,495,840
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants
#134
of 414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,284
of 332,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 414 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 332,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.