↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the bacterial contribution to the plastid proteome

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Plant Science, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Assessing the bacterial contribution to the plastid proteome
Published in
Trends in Plant Science, October 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.tplants.2013.09.007
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Plastids fulfill a variety of different functions (e.g., photosynthesis and amino acid biosynthesis) that rely on proteins of cyanobacterial (i.e., endosymbiont), noncyanobacterial, and 'host' (eukaryotic) origins. Analysis of plastid proteome data from glaucophytes and green algae allows robust inference of protein origins and organelle protein sharing across the >1 billion years of Archaeplastida evolution. Here, we show that more than one-third of genes encoding plastid proteins lack detectable homologs in Cyanobacteria, underlining the taxonomically broad contributions to plastid functions. Chlamydiae and Proteobacteria are the most significant other bacterial sources of plastid proteins. Mapping of plastid proteins to metabolic pathways shows a core set of anciently derived proteins in Archaeplastida, with many others being lineage specific and derived from independent horizontal gene transfer (HGT) events.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
South Africa 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
France 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 78 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Professor 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 16%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 26 29%
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 22 October 2013.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Plant Science
#2,151
of 2,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,372
of 223,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Plant Science
#23
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 2,394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 223,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.