↓ Skip to main content

The Differences between NAD-ME and NADP-ME Subtypes of C4 Photosynthesis: More than Decarboxylating Enzymes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 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 Differences between NAD-ME and NADP-ME Subtypes of C4 Photosynthesis: More than Decarboxylating Enzymes
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.01525
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaolan Rao, Richard A. Dixon

Abstract

As an adaptation to changing climatic conditions that caused high rates of photorespiration, C4 plants have evolved to display higher photosynthetic efficiency than C3 plants under elevated temperature, high light intensities, and drought. The C4 plants independently evolved more than 60 times in 19 families of angiosperms to establish similar but not uniform C4 mechanisms to concentrate CO2 around the carboxylating enzyme Rubisco (ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase). C4 photosynthesis is divided into at least two basic biochemical subtypes based on the primary decarboxylating enzymes, NAD-dependent malic enzyme (NAD-ME) and NADP-dependent malic enzyme (NADP-ME). The multiple polygenetic origins of these subtypes raise questions about the association of C4 variation between biochemical subtypes and diverse lineages. This review addresses the differences in evolutionary scenario, leaf anatomy, and especially C4 metabolic flow, C4 transporters, and cell-specific function deduced from recently reported cell-specific transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolic analyses of NAD-ME and NADP-ME subtypes. Current omic analysis has revealed the extent to which component abundances differ between the two biochemical subtypes, leading to a better understanding of C4 photosynthetic mechanisms in NAD-ME and NADP-ME subtypes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 165 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 20%
Researcher 24 14%
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 37 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 76 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 21%
Environmental Science 4 2%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 42 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2019.
All research outputs
#14,275,152
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#8,189
of 20,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,664
of 319,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#122
of 397 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,304 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 55% 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 319,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 397 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 64% of its contemporaries.