↓ Skip to main content

Re-Evaluation of Imaging Methods of Reactive Oxygen and Nitrogen Species in Plants and Fungi: Influence of Cell Wall Composition

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Re-Evaluation of Imaging Methods of Reactive Oxygen and Nitrogen Species in Plants and Fungi: Influence of Cell Wall Composition
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00826
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michaela Sedlářová, Lenka Luhová

Abstract

Developmental transitions and stress reactions in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes are tightly linked with fast and localized modifications in concentrations of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS and RNS). Fluorescent microscopic analyses are widely applied to detect localized production of ROS and RNS in vivo. In this mini-review we discuss the biological characteristics of studied material (cell wall, extracellular matrix, and tissue complexity) and its handling (concentration of probes, effect of pressure, and higher temperature) which influence results of histochemical staining with "classical" fluorochromes. Future perspectives of ROS and RNS imaging with newly designed probes are briefly outlined.

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 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 27%
Student > Master 8 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 27%
Chemistry 2 6%
Linguistics 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 24%
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 26 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,450,513
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,477
of 13,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,594
of 327,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#222
of 328 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 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 13,760 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. 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 327,740 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 328 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.