↓ Skip to main content

Regulatory Role of Cell Division Rules on Tissue Growth Heterogeneity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Regulatory Role of Cell Division Rules on Tissue Growth Heterogeneity
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2012.00174
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Alim, Olivier Hamant, Arezki Boudaoud

Abstract

The coordination of cell division and cell expansion are critical to normal development of tissues. In plants, cell wall mechanics and the there from arising cell shapes and mechanical stresses can regulate cell division and cell expansion and thereby tissue growth and morphology. Limited by experimental accessibility it remains unknown how cell division and expansion cooperatively affect tissue growth dynamics. Employing a cell-based two dimensional tissue simulation we investigate the regulatory role of a range of cell division rules on tissue growth dynamics and in particular on the spatial heterogeneity of growth. We find that random cell divisions only add noise to the growth and therefore increase growth heterogeneity, while cell divisions following the shortest new wall or along the direction of maximal mechanical stress reduce growth heterogeneity by actively enhancing the regulation of growth by mechanical stresses. Thus, we find that, beyond tissue geometry and topology, cell divisions affect the dynamics of growth, and that their signature is embedded in the statistics of tissue growth.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 88 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 24%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Master 5 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 16%
Physics and Astronomy 12 13%
Engineering 4 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 13 14%
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 13 August 2012.
All research outputs
#14,732,278
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#9,081
of 19,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,886
of 166,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,843 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 166,800 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them