↓ Skip to main content

Regulation of epidermal cell fate in Arabidopsis roots: the importance of multiple feedback loops

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Regulation of epidermal cell fate in Arabidopsis roots: the importance of multiple feedback loops
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2014.00047
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Schiefelbein, Ling Huang, Xiaohua Zheng

Abstract

The specification of distinct cell types in multicellular organisms is accomplished via establishment of differential gene expression. A major question is the nature of the mechanisms that establish this differential expression in time and space. In plants, the formation of the hair and non-hair cell types in the root epidermis has been used as a model to understand regulation of cell specification. Recent findings show surprising complexity in the number and the types of regulatory interactions between the multiple transcription factor genes/proteins influencing root epidermis cell fate. Here, we describe this regulatory network and the importance of the multiple feedback loops for its establishment and maintenance.

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 2 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
China 1 1%
Unknown 96 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 26%
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Professor 8 8%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 23%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 17 17%
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 17 February 2014.
All research outputs
#17,713,929
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#11,894
of 20,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,782
of 305,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#33
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,035 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 305,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.