↓ Skip to main content

High efficiency transformation of Brassica oleracea var. botrytis plants by Rhizobium rhizogenes

Overview of attention for article published in AMB Express, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
High efficiency transformation of Brassica oleracea var. botrytis plants by Rhizobium rhizogenes
Published in
AMB Express, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13568-018-0656-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomasz Kowalczyk, Aneta Gerszberg, Paulina Durańska, Róża Biłas, Katarzyna Hnatuszko-Konka

Abstract

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis, a very popular crop grown for its edible inflorescence, is bred only as a mutated annual cultivar and does not naturally occur in environment. Since cauliflower is still described as the most troublesome of all the B. oleracea vegetables regarding transformation processes, it is fully justified to focus on the improvement of tools for its genetic modifications. Here, we present a successful protocol for genetic transformation of cauliflower employing the process of agroinfection. The primary analysis of in vitro response of five cultivars allowed us to have chosen Pionier as the most promising cultivar; in consequence the Pionier was transformed via Rhizobium-mediated techniques in order to evaluate both, R. radiobacter (EHA 105, LBA 4404) and R. rhizogenes (ATCC 18534, A4) species. However, the latter system turned out to be more effective and, the A4 strain, in particular (72% transformation efficiency, 55% confirmed by GUS assay). That shows a promising technical advance especially when compared to the results of previous literature reports (e.g. 8.7% reported efficiency using R. rhizogenes). The transgenic cauliflower was obtained from hairy roots via organogenic callus induction. The potential transformants were analysed at the genomic and proteomic levels and their transgenic character was fully confirmed.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Researcher 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 11 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 26%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Unknown 13 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,987,106
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#740
of 1,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,752
of 330,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#13
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,245 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 65% of its contemporaries.