↓ Skip to main content

Heterogeneity of cellular circadian clocks in intact plants and its correction under light-dark cycles

Overview of attention for article published in Science Advances, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Heterogeneity of cellular circadian clocks in intact plants and its correction under light-dark cycles
Published in
Science Advances, July 2016
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.1600500
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomoaki Muranaka, Tokitaka Oyama

Abstract

Recent advances in single-cell analysis have revealed the stochasticity and nongenetic heterogeneity inherent to cellular processes. However, our knowledge of the actual cellular behaviors in a living multicellular organism is still limited. By using a single-cell bioluminescence imaging technique on duckweed, Lemna gibba, we demonstrate that, under constant conditions, cells in the intact plant work as individual circadian clocks that oscillate with their own frequencies and respond independently to external stimuli. Quantitative analysis uncovered the heterogeneity and instability of cellular clocks and partial synchronization between neighboring cells. Furthermore, we found that cellular clocks in the plant body under light-dark cycles showed a centrifugal phase pattern in which the effect of cell-to-cell heterogeneity in period lengths was almost masked. The inherent heterogeneity in the properties of cellular clocks observed under constant conditions is corrected under light-dark cycles to coordinate the daily rhythms of the plant body. These findings provide a novel perspective of spatiotemporal architectures in the plant circadian system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 12%
Engineering 3 5%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 12 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,837,286
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
#9,236
of 12,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,699
of 372,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
#95
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 120.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 372,251 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.