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
| Chapter title |
Growth Rate Normalization Method to Assess Gravitropic Root Growth
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 15 |
| Book title |
Root Development
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-7747-5_15 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-7746-8, 978-1-4939-7747-5
|
| Authors |
Maria Schöller, Elizabeth Sarkel, Jürgen Kleine-Vehn, Elena Feraru |
| Abstract |
Time-lapse imaging of roots is highly suitable for depicting gravitropic growth behaviors. However, roots may show faster or slower bending kinetics when compared to control as a result of differences in overall root growth. Accordingly, conditions that cause differential organ growth require growth rate normalization to compare gravitropic curvature. Here, we describe a simple normalization method for gravitropic root growth evaluation. We exemplify this method by exposing seedlings to distinct environmental conditions or disturbing the cellular auxin contents. This data shows that the method is suitable to discriminate between gravitropic and overall organ growth defects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
| Austria | 2 | 8% |
| India | 2 | 8% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Brunei Darussalam | 1 | 4% |
| Thailand | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 14 | 56% |
| Members of the public | 10 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 38% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 69% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 15% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 24 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,198,583
of 24,076,951 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#352
of 13,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,410
of 336,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#7
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,076,951 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,576 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 336,113 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.