↓ Skip to main content

Modification and co-option of leaf developmental programs for the acquisition of flat structures in monocots: unifacial leaves in Juncus and cladodes in Asparagus

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Modification and co-option of leaf developmental programs for the acquisition of flat structures in monocots: unifacial leaves in Juncus and cladodes in Asparagus
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2013.00248
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hokuto Nakayama, Takahiro Yamaguchi, Hirokazu Tsukaya

Abstract

It has been suggested that modification and co-option of existing gene regulatory networks (GRNs) play an important role in the morphological diversity. In plants, leaf development is one of active research areas, and the basic GRN for leaf development is beginning to be understood. Moreover, leaves show wide variation in their form, and some of this variation is thought to be the result of adaptation. Thus, leaves and leaf-like organs are an emerging and interesting model to reveal how existing GRNs give rise to novel forms and architectures during evolution. In this review, we highlight recent findings in evo-devo studies, especially on Juncus unifacial leaves, which are composed of lamina with abaxialized identities, and Asparagus cladodes, which are leaf-like organs at the axils of scale leaves. Based on these studies, we discuss how flat structures have evolved and morphologically diversified in shoot systems of monocot species, focusing on the modification and co-option of GRN for leaf development.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 6%
France 1 3%
Unknown 28 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 35%
Researcher 7 23%
Student > Master 4 13%
Other 1 3%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 74%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Unknown 5 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 09 July 2013.
All research outputs
#20,195,877
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#15,851
of 19,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,765
of 280,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#241
of 517 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,950 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.