↓ Skip to main content

Cloning and Characterization of Two MAPK Genes UeKpp2 and UeKpp6 in Ustilago esculenta

Overview of attention for article published in Current Microbiology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Cloning and Characterization of Two MAPK Genes UeKpp2 and UeKpp6 in Ustilago esculenta
Published in
Current Microbiology, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00284-018-1483-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yafen Zhang, Qianwen Ge, Qianchao Cao, Haifeng Cui, Peng Hu, Xiaoping Yu, Zihong Ye

Abstract

Ustilago esculenta, resembling a fungal endophyte in Zizania latifolia, inhibits the host plant flowering and induces the host stems to swell and form edible galls. It is well believed that when and how the fungus infects and proliferates in the host plants during the host development is of importance in the edible gall formation. Mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) have been found to play an important role in sensing environment cues and regulating infection. Two MAPK genes UeKpp2 and UeKpp6 from U. esculenta were cloned and suggested to be involved in the Fus3/Kss1 pathway by a phylogenetic analysis with the neighbor-joining method. Quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) analyses indicated that expression of UeKpp2 and UeKpp6 were induced during mating and infection processes, and their expression patterns displayed differentially under different carbon and nitrogen sources. In addition, subcellular localization of UeKpp2 or UeKpp6 fused with the reporter green fluoresce protein was observed by confocal laser scanning microscope, and yeast two-hybrid assays were carried out. Results showed that both UeKpp2 and UeKpp6 were located in cytoplasm and interacted with UePrf1, indicating their involvement in hyphal growth and host-pathogen regulation. Only UeKpp2 but not UeKpp6 interacted with the upstream MAPK kinase UeFuz7, implying an additional MAPK pathway, in which UeKpp6 involved, existed.

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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 57%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Unknown 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 57%
Engineering 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
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 30 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,594,219
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Current Microbiology
#1,693
of 2,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,296
of 329,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Microbiology
#26
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 329,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.