↓ Skip to main content

Competitive binding of antagonistic peptides fine-tunes stomatal patterning

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
297 Mendeley
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.
Title
Competitive binding of antagonistic peptides fine-tunes stomatal patterning
Published in
Nature, June 2015
DOI 10.1038/nature14561
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jin Suk Lee, Marketa Hnilova, Michal Maes, Ya-Chen Lisa Lin, Aarthi Putarjunan, Soon-Ki Han, Julian Avila, Keiko U. Torii

Abstract

During development, cells interpret complex and often conflicting signals to make optimal decisions. Plant stomata, the cellular interface between a plant and the atmosphere, develop according to positional cues, which include a family of secreted peptides called epidermal patterning factors (EPFs). How these signalling peptides orchestrate pattern formation at a molecular level remains unclear. Here we report in Arabidopsis that Stomagen (also called EPF-LIKE9) peptide, which promotes stomatal development, requires ERECTA (ER)-family receptor kinases and interferes with the inhibition of stomatal development by the EPIDERMAL PATTERNING FACTOR 2 (EPF2)-ER module. Both EPF2 and Stomagen directly bind to ER and its co-receptor TOO MANY MOUTHS. Stomagen peptide competitively replaced EPF2 binding to ER. Furthermore, application of EPF2, but not Stomagen, elicited rapid phosphorylation of downstream signalling components in vivo. Our findings demonstrate how a plant receptor agonist and antagonist define inhibitory and inductive cues to fine-tune tissue patterning on the plant epidermis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 297 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 288 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 65 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 21%
Student > Bachelor 40 13%
Student > Master 30 10%
Student > Postgraduate 16 5%
Other 39 13%
Unknown 46 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 160 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 62 21%
Engineering 6 2%
Physics and Astronomy 4 1%
Environmental Science 3 1%
Other 12 4%
Unknown 50 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. 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 17 September 2021.
All research outputs
#451,588
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#21,296
of 97,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,764
of 277,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#409
of 995 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 97,891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 277,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 995 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.