↓ Skip to main content

Proteomic evaluation of genetically modified crops: current status and challenges

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Proteomic evaluation of genetically modified crops: current status and challenges
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2013.00041
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun Yan Gong, Tai Wang

Abstract

Hectares of genetically modified (GM) crops have increased exponentially since 1996, when such crops began to be commercialized. GM biotechnology, together with conventional breeding, has become the main approach to improving agronomic traits of crops. However, people are concerned about the safety of GM crops, especially GM-derived food and feed. Many efforts have been made to evaluate the unintended effects caused by the introduction of exogenous genes. "Omics" techniques have advantages over targeted analysis in evaluating such crops because of their use of high-throughput screening. Proteins are key players in gene function and are directly involved in metabolism and cellular development or have roles as toxins, antinutrients, or allergens, which are essential for human health. Thus, proteomics can be expected to become one of the most useful tools in safety assessment. This review assesses the potential of proteomics in evaluating various GM crops. We further describe the challenges in ensuring homogeneity and sensitivity in detection techniques.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 86 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 27%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 6 7%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 10%
Chemistry 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Linguistics 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 20 22%
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 23 May 2014.
All research outputs
#13,884,212
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#7,186
of 19,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,330
of 280,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#113
of 517 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 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 19,916 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 280,695 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 517 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.