↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Elastic Stresses on Leaf Venation Morphogenesis

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, April 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
pinterest
1 Pinner

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
The Role of Elastic Stresses on Leaf Venation Morphogenesis
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, April 2008
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000055
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria F. Laguna, Steffen Bohn, Eduardo A. Jagla

Abstract

We explore the possible role of elastic mismatch between epidermis and mesophyll as a driving force for the development of leaf venation. The current prevalent 'canalization' hypothesis for the formation of veins claims that the transport of the hormone auxin out of the leaves triggers cell differentiation to form veins. Although there is evidence that auxin plays a fundamental role in vein formation, the simple canalization mechanism may not be enough to explain some features observed in the vascular system of leaves, in particular, the abundance of vein loops. We present a model based on the existence of mechanical instabilities that leads very naturally to hierarchical patterns with a large number of closed loops. When applied to the structure of high-order veins, the numerical results show the same qualitative features as actual venation patterns and, furthermore, have the same statistical properties. We argue that the agreement between actual and simulated patterns provides strong evidence for the role of mechanical effects on venation development.

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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Japan 2 2%
Argentina 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 112 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 20%
Professor 11 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 17 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 34%
Engineering 11 9%
Physics and Astronomy 10 8%
Environmental Science 10 8%
Computer Science 9 7%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 18 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 December 2022.
All research outputs
#6,499,906
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#4,459
of 8,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,434
of 95,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#27
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 95,641 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.