↓ Skip to main content

Transcriptional responses of Arabidopsis thaliana to chewing and sucking insect herbivores

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
16 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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
Transcriptional responses of Arabidopsis thaliana to chewing and sucking insect herbivores
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2014.00565
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heidi M. Appel, Howard Fescemyer, Juergen Ehlting, David Weston, Erin Rehrig, Trupti Joshi, Dong Xu, Joerg Bohlmann, Jack Schultz

Abstract

We tested the hypothesis that Arabidopsis can recognize and respond differentially to insect species at the transcriptional level using a genome wide microarray. Transcriptional reprogramming was characterized using co-expression analysis in damaged and undamaged leaves at two times in response to mechanical wounding and four insect species. In all, 2778 (10.6%) of annotated genes on the array were differentially expressed in at least one treatment. Responses differed mainly between aphid and caterpillar and sampling times. Responses to aphids and caterpillars shared only 10% of up-regulated and 8% of down-regulated genes. Responses to two caterpillars shared 21 and 12% of up- and down-regulated genes, whereas responses to the two aphids shared only 7 and 4% of up-regulated and down-regulated genes. Overlap in genes expressed between 6 and 24 h was 3-15%, and depended on the insect species. Responses in attacked and unattacked leaves differed at 6 h but converged by 24 h. Genes responding to the insects are also responsive to many stressors and included primary metabolism. Aphids down-regulated amino acid catabolism; caterpillars stimulated production of amino acids involved in glucosinolate synthesis. Co-expression analysis revealed 17 response networks. Transcription factors were a major portion of differentially expressed genes throughout and responsive genes shared most of the known or postulated binding sites. However, cis-element composition of genes down regulated by the aphid M. persicae was unique, as were those of genes down-regulated by caterpillars. As many as 20 cis-elements were over-represented in one or more treatments, including some from well-characterized classes and others as yet uncharacterized. We suggest that transcriptional changes elicited by wounding and insects are heavily influenced by transcription factors and involve both enrichment of a common set of cis-elements and a unique enrichment of a few cis-elements in responding genes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 143 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 19%
Researcher 27 18%
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Professor 6 4%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 35 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 91 61%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 7%
Environmental Science 3 2%
Philosophy 1 <1%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 38 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 81. 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 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
#439,647
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#84
of 20,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,034
of 258,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#1
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,065 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 258,049 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.