↓ Skip to main content

Atmospheric H2S and SO2 as sulfur source for Brassica juncea and Brassica rapa: impact on the glucosinolate composition

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Atmospheric H2S and SO2 as sulfur source for Brassica juncea and Brassica rapa: impact on the glucosinolate composition
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.00924
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tahereh Aghajanzadeh, Stanislav Kopriva, Malcolm J. Hawkesford, Anna Koprivova, Luit J. De Kok

Abstract

The impact of sulfate deprivation and atmospheric H2S and SO2 nutrition on the content and composition of glucosinolates was studied in Brassica juncea and B. rapa. Both species contained a number of aliphatic, aromatic and indolic glucosinolates. The total glucosinolate content was more than 5.5-fold higher in B. juncea than in B. rapa, which could solely be attributed to the presence of high levels of sinigrin, which was absent in the latter species. Sulfate deprivation resulted in a strong decrease in the content and an altered composition of the glucosinolates of both species. Despite the differences in patterns in foliarly uptake and metabolism, their exposure hardly affected the glucosinolate composition of the shoot, both at sulfate-sufficient and sulfate-deprived conditions. This indicated that the glucosinolate composition in the shoot was hardly affected by differences in sulfur source (viz., sulfate, sulfite and sulfide). Upon sulfate deprivation, where foliarly absorbed H2S and SO2 were the sole sulfur source for growth, the glucosinolate composition of roots differed from sulfate-sufficient B. juncea and B. rapa, notably the fraction of the indolic glucosinolates was lower than that observed in sulfur-sufficient roots.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 26%
Student > Master 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 21%
Environmental Science 2 11%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 2 11%
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 19 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,820,431
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#14,393
of 21,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,596
of 285,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#227
of 365 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,161 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 285,902 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 365 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.