↓ Skip to main content

Plant RNA binding proteins for control of RNA virus infection

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Plant RNA binding proteins for control of RNA virus infection
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2013.00397
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sung Un Huh, Kyung-Hee Paek

Abstract

Plant RNA viruses have effective strategies to infect host plants through either direct or indirect interactions with various host proteins, thus suppressing the host immune system. When plant RNA viruses enter host cells exposed RNAs of viruses are recognized by the host immune system through processes such as siRNA-dependent silencing. Interestingly, some host RNA binding proteins have been involved in the inhibition of RNA virus replication, movement, and translation through RNA-specific binding. Host plants intensively use RNA binding proteins for defense against viral infections in nature. In this mini review, we will summarize the function of some host RNA binding proteins which act in a sequence-specific binding manner to the infecting virus RNA. It is important to understand how plants effectively suppress RNA virus infections via RNA binding proteins, and this defense system can be potentially developed as a synthetic virus defense strategy for use in crop engineering.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Argentina 1 2%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 24%
Student > Master 14 21%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Other 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 21%
Unspecified 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 11 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 January 2014.
All research outputs
#13,905,689
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,880
of 13,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,447
of 280,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#140
of 398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 280,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 398 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 62% of its contemporaries.