↓ Skip to main content

Differential growth responses of Brachypodium distachyon genotypes to inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Molecular Biology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Differential growth responses of Brachypodium distachyon genotypes to inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria
Published in
Plant Molecular Biology, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11103-016-0449-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernanda P. do Amaral, Vânia C. S. Pankievicz, Ana Carolina M. Arisi, Emanuel M. de Souza, Fabio Pedrosa, Gary Stacey

Abstract

Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) can associate and enhance the growth of important crop grasses. However, in most cases, the molecular mechanisms responsible for growth promotion are not known. Such research could benefit by the adoption of a grass model species that showed a positive response to bacterial inoculation and was amenable to genetic and molecular research methods. In this work we inoculated different genotypes of the model grass Brachypodium distachyon with two, well-characterized PGPR bacteria, Azospirillum brasilense and Herbaspirillum seropedicae, and evaluated the growth response. Plants were grown in soil under no nitrogen or with low nitrogen (i.e., 0.5 mM KNO3). A variety of growth parameters (e.g., shoot height, root length, number of lateral roots, fresh and dry weight) were measured 35 days after inoculation. The data indicate that plant genotype plays a very important role in determining the plant response to PGPR inoculation. A positive growth response was observed with only four genotypes grown under no nitrogen and three genotypes tested under low nitrogen. However, in contrast, relatively good root colonization was seen with most genotypes, as measured by drop plate counting and direct, microscopic examination of roots. In particular, the endophytic bacteria H. seropedicae showed strong epiphytic and endophytic colonization of roots.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
India 1 1%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 26%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 10 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 53 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 15%
Engineering 4 4%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 15 16%
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 14 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,785,991
of 22,846,662 outputs
Outputs from Plant Molecular Biology
#2,449
of 2,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,779
of 400,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Molecular Biology
#21
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,846,662 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,846 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 400,824 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 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.