↓ Skip to main content

The significance of glucosinolates for sulfur storage in Brassicaceae seedlings

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
The significance of glucosinolates for sulfur storage in Brassicaceae seedlings
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2014.00704
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tahereh Aghajanzadeh, Malcolm J. Hawkesford, Luit J. De Kok

Abstract

Brassica juncea seedlings contained a twofold higher glucosinolate content than B. rapa and these secondary sulfur compounds accounted for up to 30% of the organic sulfur fraction. The glucosinolate content was not affected by H2S and SO2 exposure, demonstrating that these sulfur compounds did not form a sink for excessive atmospheric supplied sulfur. Upon sulfate deprivation, the foliarly absorbed H2S and SO2 replaced sulfate as the sulfur source for growth of B. juncea and B. rapa seedlings. The glucosinolate content was decreased in sulfate-deprived plants, though its proportion of organic sulfur fraction was higher than that of sulfate-sufficient plants, both in absence and presence of H2S and SO2. The significance of myrosinase in the in situ turnover in these secondary sulfur compounds needs to be questioned, since there was no direct co-regulation between the content of glucosinolates and the transcript level and activity of myrosinase. Evidently, glucosinolates cannot be considered as sulfur storage compounds upon exposure to excessive atmospheric sulfur and are unlikely to be involved in the re-distribution of sulfur in B. juncea and B. rapa seedlings upon sulfate deprivation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 11%
Chemistry 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 21 28%
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 19 December 2014.
All research outputs
#17,734,890
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#11,947
of 20,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,968
of 353,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#123
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 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 20,071 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 353,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.