↓ Skip to main content

How complex are intracellular immune receptor signaling complexes?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
How complex are intracellular immune receptor signaling complexes?
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2012.00237
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vera Bonardi, Jeffery L. Dangl

Abstract

Nucleotide binding leucine-rich repeat proteins (NLRs) are the major class of intracellular immune receptors in plants. NLRs typically function to specifically recognize pathogen effectors and to initiate and control defense responses that severely limit pathogen growth in plants (termed effector-triggered immunity, or ETI). Despite numerous reports supporting a central role in innate immunity, the molecular mechanisms driving NLR activation and downstream signaling remain largely elusive. Recent reports shed light on the pre- and post-activation dynamics of a few NLR-containing protein complexes. Recent technological advances in the use of proteomics may enable high-resolution definition of immune protein complexes and possible activation-relevant post-translational modifications of the components in these complexes. In this review, we focus on research aimed at characterizing pre- and post-activation NLR protein complexes and the molecular events that follow activation. We discuss the use of new or improved technologies as tools to unveil the molecular mechanisms that define NLR-mediated pathogen recognition.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Germany 2 2%
Unknown 116 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 21%
Student > Master 16 13%
Professor 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 18 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 73 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Linguistics 1 <1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 20 17%
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 15 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,175,598
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#4,415
of 19,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,825
of 244,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#36
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,864 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 244,115 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.