↓ Skip to main content

LEAFDATA: a literature-curated database for Arabidopsis leaf development

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

8 tweeters
1 Facebook page


5 Dimensions

Readers on

17 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.
LEAFDATA: a literature-curated database for Arabidopsis leaf development
Published in
Plant Methods, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13007-016-0115-9
Pubmed ID

Dóra Szakonyi


In the post-genomic era, biological databases provide an easy access to a wide variety of scientific data. The vast quantity of literature calls for curated databases where existing knowledge is carefully organized in order to aid novel discoveries. Leaves, the main photosynthetic organs are not only vital for plant growth but also essential for maintaining the global ecosystem by producing oxygen and food. Therefore, studying and understanding leaf formation and growth are key objectives in biology. Arabidopsis thaliana to this date remains the prime experimental model organism in plant science. LEAFDATA was created as an easily accessible and searchable web tool to assemble a relevant collection of Arabidopsis leaf literature. LEAFDATA currently contains 13,553 categorized statements from 380 processed publications. LEAFDATA can be searched for genes of interest using Arabidopsis Genome Initiative identifiers, for selected papers by means of PubMed IDs, authors and specific keywords. The results page contains details of the original publications, text fragments from the curated literature grouped according to information types and direct links to PubMed pages of the original papers. The LEAFDATA database offers access to searchable entries curated from a large number of scientific publications. Due to the unprecedented details of annotations and the fact that LEAFDATA already provides records about approximately 1600 individual loci, this database is useful for the entire plant research community.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Student > Master 2 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 53%
Engineering 2 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
of 20,406,949 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 280,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,406,949 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 280,267 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.