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 |
Different pathogenicities of Rice stripe virus from the insect vector and from viruliferous plants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
New Phytologist, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1111/nph.13747 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wan Zhao, Pengcheng Yang, Le Kang, Feng Cui |
| Abstract |
Persistent plant viruses usually depend on insects for their transmission; they cannot be transmitted between plants or through mechanical inoculation. However, the mechanism by which persistent viruses become pathogenic in insect vectors remains unknown. In this study, we used Rice stripe virus (RSV), its insect vector Laodelphax striatellus and host plant (Oryza sativa) to explore how persistent viruses acquire pathogenicity from insect vectors. RSV acquired phytopathogenicity in both the alimentary tract and the salivary gland of L. striatellus. We mechanically inoculated RSV into rice O. sativa leaves through midrib microinjection. Insect-derived RSV induced a typical stripe symptom, whereas plant-derived RSV only produced chlorosis in rice leaves. Insect-derived RSV had higher expression of genes rdrp, ns2, nsvc2, sp and nsvc4 than plant-derived RSV, and the latter had higher expression of genes cp and ns3 than the former in rice leaves. Different from plant-derived RSV, insect-derived RSV damaged grana stacks within the chloroplast and inhibited photosynthesis by suppressing the photosystem II subunit psbp. This study not only presented a convenient method to mechanically inoculate RSV into plants, but also provided insights into the different pathogenic mechanisms of RSV from the insect vector and from viruliferous plants. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 18% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 2% |
| Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 30% |
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 02 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,431,664
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from New Phytologist
#8,097
of 8,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,575
of 386,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New Phytologist
#129
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 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 8,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 386,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.