↓ Skip to main content

Multivariate unmixing approaches on Raman images of plant cell walls: new insights or overinterpretation of results?

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Multivariate unmixing approaches on Raman images of plant cell walls: new insights or overinterpretation of results?
Published in
Plant Methods, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13007-018-0320-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Batirtze Prats-Mateu, Martin Felhofer, Anna de Juan, Notburga Gierlinger

Abstract

Plant cell walls are nanocomposites based on cellulose microfibrils embedded in a matrix of polysaccharides and aromatic polymers. They are optimized for different functions (e.g. mechanical stability) by changing cell form, cell wall thickness and composition. To reveal the composition of plant tissues in a non-destructive way on the microscale, Raman imaging has become an important tool. Thousands of Raman spectra are acquired, each one being a spatially resolved molecular fingerprint of the plant cell wall. Nevertheless, due to the multicomponent nature of plant cell walls, many bands are overlapping and classical band integration approaches often not suitable for imaging. Multivariate data analysing approaches have a high potential as the whole wavenumber region of all thousands of spectra is analysed at once. Three multivariate unmixing algorithms, vertex component analysis, non-negative matrix factorization and multivariate curve resolution-alternating least squares were applied to find the purest components within datasets acquired from micro-sections of spruce wood and Arabidopsis. With all three approaches different cell wall layers (including tiny S1 and S3 with 0.09-0.14 µm thickness) and cell contents were distinguished and endmember spectra with a good signal to noise ratio extracted. Baseline correction influences the results obtained in all methods as well as the way in which algorithm extracts components, i.e. prioritizing the extraction of positive endmembers by sequential orthogonal projections in VCA or performing a simultaneous extraction of non-negative components aiming at explaining the maximum variance in NMF and MCR-ALS. Other constraints applied (e.g. closure in VCA) or a previous principal component analysis filtering step in MCR-ALS also contribute to the differences obtained. VCA is recommended as a good preliminary approach, since it is fast, does not require setting many input parameters and the endmember spectra result in good approximations of the raw data. Yet the endmember spectra are more correlated and mixed than those retrieved by NMF and MCR-ALS methods. The latter two give the best model statistics (with lower lack of fit in the models), but care has to be taken about overestimating the rank as it can lead to artificial shapes due to peak splitting or inverted bands.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 19%
Engineering 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Chemistry 4 7%
Physics and Astronomy 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 August 2020.
All research outputs
#15,012,809
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#787
of 1,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,241
of 328,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#26
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 328,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.