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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Stomatal Closure and Rise in ROS/NO of Arabidopsis Guard Cells by Tobacco Microbial Elicitors: Cryptogein and Harpin
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Plant Science, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpls.2017.01096 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gunja Gayatri, Srinivas Agurla, Kazuyuki Kuchitsu, Kondreddy Anil, Appa R. Podile, Agepati S. Raghavendra |
| Abstract |
Plants use stomatal closure mediated by elicitors as the first step of the innate immune response to restrict the microbial entry. We present a comprehensive study of the effect of cryptogein and harpin, two elicitors from microbial pathogens of tobacco, on stomatal closure and guard cell signaling components in Arabidopsis thaliana, a model plant. Cryptogein as well as harpin induced stomatal closure, while elevating the levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and nitric oxide (NO) in the guard cells of A. thaliana. Kinetic studies with fluorescent dyes revealed that the rise in ROS levels preceded that of NO in guard cells, when treated with these two elicitors. The restriction of NO levels in guard cells, even by ROS modulators indicates the essentiality of ROS for NO production during elicitor-triggered stomatal closure. The signaling events during elicitor-induced stomatal closure appear to converge at NADPH oxidase and ROS production. Our results provide the first report on stomatal closure associated with rise in ROS/NO of guard cells by cryptogein and harpin in A. thaliana. Our results establish that A. thaliana can be used to study stomatal responses to the typical elicitors from microbial pathogens of other plants. The suitability of Arabidopsis opens up an excellent scope for further studies on signaling events leading to stomatal closure by microbial elicitors. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 31% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
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 26 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,556,449
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#13,925
of 20,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,024
of 316,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#453
of 571 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,433 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 316,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 571 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.