↓ Skip to main content

How phloem-feeding insects face the challenge of phloem-located defenses

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
172 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
247 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 phloem-feeding insects face the challenge of phloem-located defenses
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2013.00336
Pubmed ID
Authors

Torsten Will, Alexandra C. U. Furch, Matthias R. Zimmermann

Abstract

Due to the high content of nutrient, sieve tubes are a primary target for pests, e.g., most phytophagous hemipteran. To protect the integrity of the sieve tubes as well as their content, plants possess diverse chemical and physical defense mechanisms. The latter mechanisms are important because they can potentially interfere with the food source accession of phloem-feeding insects. Physical defense mechanisms are based on callose as well as on proteins and often plug the sieve tube. Insects that feed from sieve tubes are potentially able to overwhelm these defense mechanisms using their saliva. Gel saliva forms a sheath in the apoplast around the stylet and is suggested to seal the stylet penetration site in the cell plasma membrane. In addition, watery saliva is secreted into penetrated cells including sieve elements; the presence of specific enzymes/effectors in this saliva is thought to interfere with plant defense responses. Here we detail several aspects of plant defense and discuss the interaction of plants and phloem-feeding insects. Recent agro-biotechnological phloem-located aphid control strategies are presented.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 3 1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 233 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 17%
Student > Master 36 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 9%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Other 28 11%
Unknown 48 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 148 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 7%
Environmental Science 9 4%
Unspecified 5 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 1%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 49 20%
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 29 August 2013.
All research outputs
#17,695,202
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#11,867
of 19,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,203
of 280,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#172
of 517 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,961 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 280,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.