↓ Skip to main content

Development of schizogenous intercellular spaces in plants

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Development of schizogenous intercellular spaces in plants
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.00497
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimitsune Ishizaki

Abstract

Gas exchange is essential for multicellular organisms. In contrast to the circulatory systems of animals, land plants have tissues with intercellular spaces (ICSs), called aerenchyma, that are critical for efficient gas exchange. Plants form ICSs by two different mechanisms: schizogeny, where localized cell separation creates spaces; and lysogeny, where cells die to create ICSs. In schizogenous ICS formation, specific molecular mechanisms regulate the sites of cell separation and coordinate extensive reorganization of cell walls. Emerging evidence suggests the involvement of extracellular signaling, mediated by peptide ligands and leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinases, in the regulation of cell wall remodeling during cell separation. Recent work on the liverwort Marchantia polymorpha has demonstrated a critical role for a plasma membrane-associated plant U-box E3 ubiquitin ligase in ICS formation. In this review, I discuss the mechanism of schizogenous ICS formation, focusing on the potential role of extracellular signaling in the regulation of cell separation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Chile 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 62 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Master 6 9%
Professor 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 12%
Environmental Science 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,278,325
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#5,944
of 24,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,535
of 277,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#57
of 287 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,598 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 277,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 287 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.