↓ Skip to main content

Additional targets of the Arabidopsis autonomous pathway members, FCA and FY

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental Botany, September 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Additional targets of the Arabidopsis autonomous pathway members, FCA and FY
Published in
Journal of Experimental Botany, September 2006
DOI 10.1093/jxb/erl073
Pubmed ID
Authors

S Marquardt, P. Boss, J Hadfield, C Dean

Abstract

A central player in the Arabidopsis floral transition is the floral repressor FLC, the MADS-box transcriptional regulator that inhibits the activity of genes required to switch the meristem from vegetative to floral development. One of the many pathways that regulate FLC expression is the autonomous promotion pathway composed of FCA, FY, FLD, FPA, FVE, LD, and FLK. Rather than a hierarchical set of activities the autonomous promotion pathway comprises sub-pathways of genes with different biochemical functions that all share FLC as a target. One sub-pathway involves FCA and FY, which interact to regulate RNA processing of FLC. Several of the identified components (FY, FVE, and FLD) are homologous to yeast and mammalian proteins with rather generic roles in gene regulation. So why do mutations in these genes specifically show a late-flowering phenotype in Arabidopsis? One reason, found during the analysis of fy alleles, is that the mutant alleles identified in flowering screens can be hypomorphic, they still have partial function. A broader role for the autonomous promotion pathway is supported by a microarray analysis which has identified genes mis-regulated in fca mutants, and whose expression is also altered in fy mutants.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 131 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 29%
Researcher 42 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 10%
Student > Master 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 4%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 11 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 107 75%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 13%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Environmental Science 1 <1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 13 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 October 2016.
All research outputs
#4,469,573
of 17,365,229 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Botany
#1,533
of 5,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,124
of 162,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Botany
#4
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,365,229 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 162,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.