↓ Skip to main content

The Proteomic Response of Arabidopsis thaliana to Cadmium Sulfide Quantum Dots, and Its Correlation with the Transcriptomic Response

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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 Proteomic Response of Arabidopsis thaliana to Cadmium Sulfide Quantum Dots, and Its Correlation with the Transcriptomic Response
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.01104
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marta Marmiroli, Davide Imperiale, Luca Pagano, Marco Villani, Andrea Zappettini, Nelson Marmiroli

Abstract

A fuller understanding of the interaction between plants and engineered nanomaterials is of topical relevance because the latter are beginning to find applications in agriculture and the food industry. There is a growing need to establish objective safety criteria for their use. The recognition of two independent Arabidopsis thaliana mutants displaying a greater level of tolerance than the wild type plant to exposure to cadmium sulfide quantum dots (CdS QDs) has offered the opportunity to characterize the tolerance response at the physiological, transcriptomic, and proteomic levels. Here, a proteomics-based comparison confirmed the conclusions drawn from an earlier transcriptomic analysis that the two mutants responded to CdS QD exposure differently both to the wild type and to each other. Just over half of the proteomic changes mirrored documented changes at the level of gene transcription, but a substantial number of transcript/gene product pairs were altered in the opposite direction. An interpretation of the discrepancies is given, along with some considerations regarding the use and significance of -omics when monitoring the potential toxicity of ENMs for health and environment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 25%
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 15%
Environmental Science 4 7%
Engineering 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,377,140
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#6,426
of 20,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,371
of 390,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#85
of 390 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,148 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 390,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 390 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.