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 |
microRNA-mediated R gene regulation: molecular scabbards for double-edged swords
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science China Life Sciences, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11427-017-9237-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yingtian Deng, Minglei Liu, Xiaofei Li, Feng Li |
| Abstract |
Plant resistance (R) proteins are immune receptors that recognize pathogen effectors and trigger rapid defense responses, namely effector-triggered immunity. R protein-mediated pathogen resistance is usually race specific. During plant-pathogen coevolution, plant genomes accumulated large numbers of R genes. Even though plant R genes provide important natural resources for breeding disease-resistant crops, their presence in the plant genome comes at a cost. Misregulation of R genes leads to developmental defects, such as stunted growth and reduced fertility. In the past decade, many microRNAs (miRNAs) have been identified to target various R genes in plant genomes. miRNAs reduce R gene levels under normal conditions and allow induction of R gene expression under various stresses. For these reasons, we consider R genes to be double-edged "swords" and miRNAs as molecular "scabbards". In the present review, we summarize the contributions and potential problems of these "swords" and discuss the features and production of the "scabbards", as well as the mechanisms used to pull the "sword" from the "scabbard" when needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 35% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
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 13 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,583,054
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Science China Life Sciences
#626
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#331,486
of 443,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science China Life Sciences
#17
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 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 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. 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 443,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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.