↓ Skip to main content

The Making of Leaves: How Small RNA Networks Modulate Leaf Development

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, June 2018
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 (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
The Making of Leaves: How Small RNA Networks Modulate Leaf Development
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.00824
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tianxiao Yang, Yongyan Wang, Sachin Teotia, Zhanhui Zhang, Guiliang Tang

Abstract

Leaf development is a sequential process that involves initiation, determination, transition, expansion and maturation. Many coding genes and a few non-coding small RNAs (sRNAs) have been identified as being involved in leaf development. sRNAs and their interactions not only determine gene expression and regulation, but also play critical roles in leaf development through their coordination with other genetic networks and physiological pathways. In this review, we first introduce the biogenesis pathways of sRNAs, mainly microRNAs (miRNAs) and trans-acting small interfering RNAs (ta-siRNAs), and then describe the function of miRNA-transcription factors in leaf development, focusing on guidance by interactive sRNA regulatory networks.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 29%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 29%
Chemistry 1 1%
Engineering 1 1%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 03 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,968,318
of 26,454,856 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#2,050
of 25,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,385
of 344,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#50
of 471 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,454,856 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,287 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 344,929 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 471 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.