↓ Skip to main content

A Plant Biologist’s Toolbox to Study Translation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
A Plant Biologist’s Toolbox to Study Translation
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.00873
Pubmed ID
Authors

Serina M. Mazzoni-Putman, Anna N. Stepanova

Abstract

Across a broad range of species and biological questions, more and more studies are incorporating translation data to better assess how gene regulation occurs at the level of protein synthesis. The inclusion of translation data improves upon, and has been shown to be more accurate than, transcriptional studies alone. However, there are many different techniques available to measure translation and it can be difficult, especially for young or aspiring scientists, to determine which methods are best applied in specific situations. We have assembled this review in order to enhance the understanding and promote the utilization of translational methods in plant biology. We cover a broad range of methods to measure changes in global translation (e.g., radiolabeling, polysome profiling, or puromycylation), translation of single genes (e.g., fluorescent reporter constructs, toeprinting, or ribosome density mapping), sequencing-based methods to uncover the entire translatome (e.g., Ribo-seq or translating ribosome affinity purification), and mass spectrometry-based methods to identify changes in the proteome (e.g., stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture or bioorthogonal noncanonical amino acid tagging). The benefits and limitations of each method are discussed with a particular note of how applications from other model systems might be extended for use in plants. In order to make this burgeoning field more accessible to students and newer scientists, our review includes an extensive glossary to define key terms.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 20%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 31 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 31%
Engineering 2 2%
Chemistry 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 34 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 July 2022.
All research outputs
#7,892,319
of 25,257,066 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#4,811
of 24,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,379
of 334,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#115
of 479 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,257,066 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,303 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 334,635 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 61% 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 75% of its contemporaries.