↓ Skip to main content

Amino Acids and TOR Signaling Promote Prothoracic Gland Growth and the Initiation of Larval Molts in the Tobacco Hornworm Manduca sexta

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Amino Acids and TOR Signaling Promote Prothoracic Gland Growth and the Initiation of Larval Molts in the Tobacco Hornworm Manduca sexta
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0044429
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Kemirembe, Kate Liebmann, Abigail Bootes, Wendy A. Smith, Yuichiro Suzuki

Abstract

Molting in arthropods is orchestrated by a series of endocrine changes that occur towards the end of an instar. However, little is understood about the mechanisms that trigger these endocrine changes. Here, nutritional inputs were manipulated to investigate the minimal nutritional inputs required for a Manduca sexta larva to initiate a molt. Amino acids were found to be necessary for a larva to molt, indicating the involvement of an amino acid sensitive pathway. Feeding rapamycin, an inhibitor of the target of rapamycin (TOR) signaling, delayed the onset of a molt and resulted in abnormally larger larvae. Rapamycin also suppressed the growth of the prothoracic glands relative to the whole body growth, and this was accompanied by suppression of ecdysone production and secretion. Higher doses of rapamycin also slowed the growth rate, indicating that TOR signaling also plays a role in systemic growth. TOR signaling therefore couples the nutritional status of the larva to the endocrine system to regulate the timing of a molt.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 30 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 25%
Psychology 1 3%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 September 2012.
All research outputs
#20,166,700
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#172,725
of 193,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,272
of 168,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,855
of 4,262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 168,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.