↓ Skip to main content

Detection and diagnosis of rice-infecting viruses

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Detection and diagnosis of rice-infecting viruses
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00289
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamaki Uehara-Ichiki, Takuya Shiba, Keiichiro Matsukura, Takanori Ueno, Masahiro Hirae, Takahide Sasaya

Abstract

Rice-infecting viruses have caused serious damage to rice production in Asian, American, and African countries, where about 30 rice viruses and diseases have been reported. To control these diseases, developing accurate, quick methods to detect and diagnose the viruses in the host plants and any insect vectors of the viruses is very important. Based on an antigen-antibody reaction, serological methods such as latex agglutination reaction and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay have advanced to detect viral particles or major proteins derived from viruses. They aid in forecasting disease and surveying disease spread and are widely used for virus detection at plant protection stations and research laboratories. From the early 2000s, based on sequence information for the target virus, several other methods such as reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification have been developed that are sensitive, rapid, and able to differentiate closely related viruses. Recent techniques such as real-time RT-PCR can be used to quantify the pathogen in target samples and monitor population dynamics of a virus, and metagenomic analyses using next-generation sequencing and microarrays show potential for use in the diagnosis of rice diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Poland 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 28 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,205,224
of 22,725,280 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#22,173
of 24,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,792
of 280,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#264
of 407 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,725,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 407 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.