↓ Skip to main content

Horizontal gene transfer in plants

Overview of attention for article published in Functional & Integrative Genomics, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 283)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
356 Mendeley
Title
Horizontal gene transfer in plants
Published in
Functional & Integrative Genomics, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10142-013-0345-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caihua Gao, Xiaodong Ren, Annaliese S. Mason, Honglei Liu, Meili Xiao, Jiana Li, Donghui Fu

Abstract

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) describes the transmission of genetic material across species boundaries. HGT often occurs in microbic and eukaryotic genomes. However, the pathways by which HGTs occur in multicellular eukaryotes, especially in plants, are not well understood. We systematically summarized more than ten possible pathways for HGT. The intimate contact which frequently occurs in parasitism, symbiosis, pathogen, epiphyte, entophyte, and grafting interactions could promote HGTs between two species. Besides these direct transfer methods, genes can be exchanged with a vector as a bridge: possible vectors include pollen, fungi, bacteria, viruses, viroids, plasmids, transposons, and insects. HGT, especially when involving horizontal transfer of transposable elements, is recognized as a significant force propelling genomic variation and biological innovation, playing an important functional and evolutionary role in both eukaryotic and prokaryotic genomes. We proposed possible mechanisms by which HGTs can occur, which is useful in understanding the genetic information exchange among distant species or distant cellular components.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 356 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 6 2%
United States 5 1%
Germany 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Mexico 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
New Zealand 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Philippines 2 <1%
Other 11 3%
Unknown 314 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 23%
Researcher 78 22%
Student > Master 54 15%
Student > Bachelor 42 12%
Professor 22 6%
Other 79 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 254 71%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 45 13%
Unspecified 26 7%
Environmental Science 10 3%
Computer Science 5 1%
Other 16 4%

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 17 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,082,342
of 12,306,918 outputs
Outputs from Functional & Integrative Genomics
#21
of 283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,209
of 197,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Functional & Integrative Genomics
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,306,918 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 283 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 197,795 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them