↓ Skip to main content

Transcriptome profiling of resistant and susceptible Cavendish banana roots following inoculation with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense tropical race 4

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, August 2012
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
148 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
287 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
Transcriptome profiling of resistant and susceptible Cavendish banana roots following inoculation with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense tropical race 4
Published in
BMC Genomics, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-13-374
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun-yu Li, Gui-ming Deng, Jing Yang, Altus Viljoen, Yan Jin, Rui-bin Kuang, Cun-wu Zuo, Zhi-cheng Lv, Qiao-song Yang, Ou Sheng, Yue-rong Wei, Chun-hua Hu, Tao Dong, Gan-jun Yi

Abstract

Fusarium wilt, caused by the fungal pathogen Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense tropical race 4 (Foc TR4), is considered the most lethal disease of Cavendish bananas in the world. The disease can be managed in the field by planting resistant Cavendish plants generated by somaclonal variation. However, little information is available on the genetic basis of plant resistance to Foc TR4. To a better understand the defense response of resistant banana plants to the Fusarium wilt pathogen, the transcriptome profiles in roots of resistant and susceptible Cavendish banana challenged with Foc TR4 were compared.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 2 <1%
Uganda 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 280 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 62 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 20%
Student > Master 47 16%
Student > Bachelor 27 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 5%
Other 30 10%
Unknown 52 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 172 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 1%
Chemistry 3 1%
Other 12 4%
Unknown 57 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 August 2013.
All research outputs
#3,645,635
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,438
of 10,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,321
of 165,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#13
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,614 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 165,047 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.