↓ Skip to main content

Integrated decoys and effector traps: how to catch a plant pathogen

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 blogs
9 tweeters


31 Dimensions

Readers on

90 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.
Integrated decoys and effector traps: how to catch a plant pathogen
Published in
BMC Biology, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12915-016-0235-8
Pubmed ID

Jeffrey G. Ellis


Plant immune receptors involved in disease resistance and crop protection are related to the animal Nod-like receptor (NLR) class, and recognise the virulence effectors of plant pathogens, whereby they arm the plant's defensive response. Although plant NLRs mainly contain three protein domains, about 10 % of these receptors identified by extensive cross-plant species data base searches have now been shown to include novel and highly variable integrated domains, some of which have been shown to detect pathogen effectors by direct interaction. Sarris et al. have identified a large number of integrated domains that can be used to detect effector targets in host plant proteomes and identify unknown pathogen effectors.Please see related Research article: Comparative analysis of plant immune receptor architectures uncovers host proteins likely targeted by pathogens, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12915-016-0228-7 Since the time of writing, a closely related paper has been released: Kroj T, Chanclud E, Michel-Romiti C, Grand X, Morel J-B. Integration of decoy domains derived from protein targets of pathogen effectors into plant immune receptors is widespread. New Phytol. 2016 (ahead of print).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 86 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 31%
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 6 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 16%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Unspecified 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 9 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 13 January 2017.
All research outputs
of 15,665,241 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biology
of 1,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 268,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biology
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,665,241 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 268,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them