The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Variations in Early Response of Grapevine Wood Depending on Wound and Inoculation Combinations with Phaeoacremonium aleophilum and Phaeomoniella chlamydospora
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Plant Science, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpls.2016.00268 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Romain J. G. Pierron, Jérôme Pouzoulet, Christel Couderc, Elodie Judic, Stéphane Compant, Alban Jacques |
| Abstract |
Defense mechanisms in woody tissue are poorly understood, especially in vine colonized by trunk pathogens. However, several investigations suggest that molecular mechanisms in the central tissue of Vitis vinifera L. may be involved in trunk-defense reactions. In this work, the perception of Phaeoacremonium aleophilum and Phaeomoniella chlamydospora alone or together were investigated in cuttings of Cabernet Sauvignon trunks. Plant responses were analyzed at the tissue level via optical microscopy and at the cellular level via plant-gene expression. The microscopy results revealed that, 6 weeks after pathogen inoculation, newly formed vascular tissue is less developed in plants inoculated with P. chlamydospora than in plants inoculated with P. aleophilum. Co-inoculation with both pathogens resulted in an intermediate phenotype. Further analysis showed the relative expression of the following grapevine genes: PAL, PR10.3, TL, TLb, Vv17.3, STS, STS8, CWinv, PIN, CAM, LOX at 10, 24, 48, and 120 h post-inoculation (hpi). The gene set was induced by wounding before inoculation with the different pathogens, except for the genes CAM and LOX. This response generated significant noise, but the expression of the grapevine genes (PAL, PR10.3, TL, TLb, Vv17.3, STS, STS8, CWinv, and PIN) still differed due to perception of mycelium by the plant. Furthermore, at 48 hpi, the induction of PAL and STS8 differs depending on the pathogen, and a specific pattern emerges from the different inductions associated with the different treatments. Based on these results, we conclude that V. vinifera L. trunk perceives the presence of pathogens differently depending on the inoculated pathogen or even on the combination of co-inoculated pathogens, suggesting a defense orchestration in the perennial organs of woody plants. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 63% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,771,565
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#4,542
of 24,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,378
of 314,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#92
of 513 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,598 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 314,372 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 513 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.