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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparative transcriptomics provide insight into the morphogenesis and evolution of fistular leaves in Allium
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Genomics, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12864-016-3474-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Siyuan Zhu, Shouwei Tang, Zhijian Tan, Yongting Yu, Qiuzhong Dai, Touming Liu |
| Abstract |
Fistular leaves frequently appear in Allium species, and previous developmental studies have proposed that the process of fistular leaf formation involves programmed cell death. However, molecular evidence for the role of programmed cell death in the formation of fistular leaf cavities has yet to be reported. In this study, we characterized the leaf transcriptomes of nine Allium species, including six fistular- and three solid-leaved species. In addition, we identified orthologous genes and estimated their Ka and Ks values, in order to ascertain their selective pattern. Phylogenetic analysis based on the transcriptomes revealed that A. tuberosum was the most ancestral among the nine species, and analysis of orthologous genes between A. tuberosum and the other eight species indicated that 149 genes were subject to positive selection; whereas >3000 had undergone purifying selection in each species. We found that many genes that are potentially related to programmed cell death either exhibited rapid diversification in fistular-leaved species, or were conserved in solid-leaved species in evolutionary history. These genes potentially involved in programmed cell death might play important roles in the formation of fistular leaf cavities in Allium, and the differing selection patterns in fistular- and solid-leaved species may be responsible for the evolution of fistular leaves. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 47% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 7% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Design | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
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 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,382,391
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#9,303
of 10,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,637
of 421,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#166
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,677 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 421,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.