Govinal B Bhaskara, Thao T Nguyen, Tsu-Hao Yang, Paul E Verslues
Abstract
Several studies have used short term dehydration, osmotic stress or Abscisic Acid (ABA) treatments to identify the initial protein phosphorylation-dephosphorylation responses to drought and low water potential or ABA treatments. However, longer term drought acclimation leads to altered expression of many kinases and phosphatases suggesting that it may also produce unique changes in phosphoproteome composition. To get a better overview of the state of drought-related phosphoproteomics and investigate this question of short versus longer term phosphoproteome regulation, we compared three Arabidopsis thaliana studies analyzing short term phosphoproteome changes to recent data from our laboratory analyzing phosphoproteome changes after a longer drought acclimation treatment. There was very little overlap of phosphoproteins with putative stress-induced phosphorylation or dephosphorylation among these studies. While some of this is due to technical limitations and limited coverage of the phosphoproteome achieved by each study, biological differences and the type of stress treatment used also play a role. This comparative analysis emphasized how both short and long term analysis of physiologically relevant stress treatments, as well as validation of phosphoproteomic data, will be needed to move past just scratching the surface of the stress phosphoproteome. In drought acclimation experiments, distinguishing between changes in protein abundance versus phosphorylation stoichiometry is a key challenge. We discuss initial work in using Arabidopsis seedling transient expression combined with Phos-tag gel analysis as a way to validate drought-induced phosphorylation-dephosphorylation of candidate proteins.
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 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,061,899
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#7,347
of 20,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,770
of 310,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#253
of 560 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,408 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 60% 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 310,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 560 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
