↓ Skip to main content

Externally imposed electric field enhances plant root tip regeneration

Overview of attention for article published in Regeneration, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Externally imposed electric field enhances plant root tip regeneration
Published in
Regeneration, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/reg2.59
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas Kral, Alexandra Hanna Ougolnikova, Giovanni Sena

Abstract

In plants, shoot and root regeneration can be induced in the distinctive conditions of tissue culture (in vitro) but is also observed in intact individuals (in planta) recovering from tissue damage. Roots, for example, can regenerate their fully excised meristems in planta, even in mutants with impaired apical stem cell niches. Unfortunately, to date a comprehensive understanding of regeneration in plants is still missing. Here, we provide evidence that an imposed electric field can perturb apical root regeneration in Arabidopsis. Crucially, we explored both spatial and temporal competences of the stump to respond to electrical stimulation, by varying respectively the position of the cut and the time interval between excision and stimulation. Our data indicate that a brief pulse of an electric field parallel to the root is sufficient to increase by up to two-fold the probability of its regeneration, and to perturb the local distribution of the hormone auxin, as well as cell division regulation. Remarkably, the orientation of the root towards the anode or the cathode is shown to play a role.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Master 4 7%
Professor 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 19%
Engineering 3 5%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 15 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,808,786
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Regeneration
#27
of 53 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,370
of 343,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Regeneration
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 53 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. 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 343,771 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.