↓ Skip to main content

Evolution and Molecular Control of Hybrid Incompatibility in Plants

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Evolution and Molecular Control of Hybrid Incompatibility in Plants
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.01208
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chen Chen, Zhiguo E, Hong-Xuan Lin

Abstract

Postzygotic reproductive isolation (RI) plays an important role in speciation. According to the stage at which it functions and the symptoms it displays, postzygotic RI can be called hybrid inviability, hybrid weakness or necrosis, hybrid sterility, or hybrid breakdown. In this review, we summarized new findings about hybrid incompatibilities in plants, most of which are from studies on Arabidopsis and rice. Recent progress suggests that hybrid incompatibility is a by-product of co-evolution either with "parasitic" selfish elements in the genome or with invasive microbes in the natural environment. We discuss the environmental influences on the expression of hybrid incompatibility and the possible effects of environment-dependent hybrid incompatibility on sympatric speciation. We also discuss the role of domestication on the evolution of hybrid incompatibilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 92 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 33%
Researcher 19 20%
Student > Master 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Professor 4 4%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Unknown 19 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 September 2019.
All research outputs
#5,310,838
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#2,797
of 24,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,470
of 375,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#51
of 479 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,949 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 375,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 479 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.