↓ Skip to main content

Glutamate Receptor Homologs in Plants: Functions and Evolutionary Origins

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 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
Glutamate Receptor Homologs in Plants: Functions and Evolutionary Origins
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2012.00235
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Beth Price, John Jelesko, Sakiko Okumoto

Abstract

The plant glutamate-like receptor homologs (GLRs) are homologs of mammalian ionotropic glutamate receptors (iGluRs) which were discovered more than 10 years ago, and are hypothesized to be potential amino acid sensors in plants. Although initial progress on this gene family has been hampered by gene redundancy and technical issues such as gene toxicity; genetic, pharmacological, and electrophysiological approaches are starting to uncover the functions of this protein family. In parallel, there has been tremendous progress in elucidating the structure of animal glutamate receptors (iGluRs), which in turn will help understanding of the molecular mechanisms of plant GLR functions. In this review, we will summarize recent progress on the plant GLRs. Emerging evidence implicates plant GLRs in various biological processes in and beyond N sensing, and implies that there is some overlap in the signaling mechanisms of amino acids between plants and animals. Phylogenetic analysis using iGluRs from metazoans, plants, and bacteria showed that the plant GLRs are no more closely related to metazoan iGluRs as they are to bacterial iGluRs, indicating the separation of plant, other eukaryotic, and bacterial GLRs might have happened as early on as the last universal common ancestor. Structural similarities and differences with animal iGluRs, and the implication thereof, are also discussed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 170 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 20%
Student > Master 30 18%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 27 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 86 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 27 16%
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 26 August 2020.
All research outputs
#19,842,681
of 25,257,066 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#14,214
of 24,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,489
of 255,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#85
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,257,066 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,303 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 255,629 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.