↓ Skip to main content

Domesticated, Genetically Engineered, and Wild Plant Relatives Exhibit Unintended Phenotypic Differences: A Comparative Meta-Analysis Profiling Rice, Canola, Maize, Sunflower, and Pumpkin

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2017
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
43 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Domesticated, Genetically Engineered, and Wild Plant Relatives Exhibit Unintended Phenotypic Differences: A Comparative Meta-Analysis Profiling Rice, Canola, Maize, Sunflower, and Pumpkin
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.02030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alejandra Hernández-Terán, Ana Wegier, Mariana Benítez, Rafael Lira, Ana E. Escalante

Abstract

Agronomic management of plants is a powerful evolutionary force acting on their populations. The management of cultivated plants is carried out by the traditional process of human selection or plant breeding and, more recently, by the technologies used in genetic engineering (GE). Even though crop modification through GE is aimed at specific traits, it is possible that other non-target traits can be affected by genetic modification due to the complex regulatory processes of plant metabolism and development. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis profiling the phenotypic consequences of plant breeding and GE, and compared modified cultivars with wild relatives in five crops of global economic and cultural importance: rice, maize, canola, sunflower, and pumpkin. For these five species, we analyzed the literature with documentation of phenotypic traits that are potentially related to fitness for the same species in comparable conditions. The information was analyzed to evaluate whether the different processes of modification had influenced the phenotype in such a way as to cause statistical differences in the state of specific phenotypic traits or grouping of the organisms depending on their genetic origin [wild, domesticated with genetic engineering (domGE), and domesticated without genetic engineering (domNGE)]. In addition, we tested the hypothesis that, given that transgenic plants are a construct designed to impact, in many cases, a single trait of the plant (e.g., lepidopteran resistance), the phenotypic differences between domGE and domNGE would be either less (or inexistent) than between the wild and domesticated relatives (either domGE or domNGE). We conclude that (1) genetic modification (either by selective breeding or GE) can be traced phenotypically when comparing wild relatives with their domesticated relatives (domGE and domNGE) and (2) the existence and the magnitude of the phenotypic differences between domGE and domNGE of the same crop suggest consequences of genetic modification beyond the target trait(s).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 12%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Philosophy 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,251,376
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#354
of 24,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,648
of 448,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#13
of 422 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,928 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 448,244 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 422 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 96% of its contemporaries.