Hothead healer and extragenomic information (reply)

Lolle, Susan J.; Victor, Jennifer L.; Young, Jessica Mercer; Pruitt, Robert E.

doi:10.1038/nature04064

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The common patterns of nature Kincaid, Murata, et al (2016). Specialized proteasome subunits have an essential role in the thymic selection of CD8 + T cells ReSc.sum Lolle, Victor, et al (2005) We calculated an FA including reviewer scores, citation impact indicators, and variants measuring disruption to investigate the underlying dimensions (latent variables). Most of the results shown in Table 4 agree with expectations: We found three dimensions, which we labeled as disruption (factor 1), citations (factor 2), and reviewers (factor 3).…”

Section: Measuring Disruptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers

Bornmann

Devarakonda

Tekles

et al. 2020

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019) proposed a new family of indicators, which measure whether a scientific publication is disruptive to a field or tradition of research. Such disruptive influences are characterized by citations to a focal paper, but not its cited references. In this study, we are interested in the question of convergent validity. We used external criteria of newness to examine convergent validity: In the post-publication peer review system of F1000Prime, experts assess papers whether the reported research fulfills these criteria (e.g., reports new findings). This study is based on 120,179 papers from F1000Prime published between 2000 and 2016. In the first part of the study we discuss the indicators. Based on the insights from the discussion, we propose alternate variants of disruption indicators. In the second part, we investigate the convergent validity of the indicators and the (possibly) improved variants. Although the results of a factor analysis show that the different variants measure similar dimensions, the results of regression analyses reveal that one variant ( DI5) performs slightly better than the others.

show abstract

Section: Measuring Disruptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers

Bornmann

Devarakonda

Tekles

et al. 2020

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly plants can overwrite the genetic code they inherited from their parents and revert to that of their grandparents or great-grandparents (Lolle et al 2005, Weigl and Juergens 2005, Pearson 2005. This contradicts traditional DNA-textbook conviction that children simply receive combinations of the genes carried by their parents.…”

Section: Intracellular Communicationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Bio-communication of Plants

Witzany

2007

Nat Prec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plants communicate with a great variety of symbiotic partners, above and below ground. Constant monitoring of signals of biotic origin as well as abiotic environmental influences allows plants to generate appropriate response behavior. These communication processes are primarily sign-mediated interactions and not simply an exchange of information. They involve active coordination and active organization of a great variety of different behavioural patterns-mediated by signs.

show abstract

“…Our results indicate intra-cultivar variation is continuously generated and is heritable. Although the genetic mechanisms driving de novo variation remain unclear, in some previous studies researchers have proposed that processes such as spontaneous mutations, DNA transposition, DNA methylation, gene duplication, unequal crossing over, gene conversion, and genome restoration might be contributing to this de novo variation (Sprague et al 1960;Fukui 1983;Rasmusson and Phillips 1997;Lolle et al 2005;Morgante et al 2005;Haun et al 2011;Hopkins et al 2013;Kempinski et al 2013).…”

Section: Aconitase-4 Profilesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of spontaneous generation of allelic variation in soybean in response to sexual hybridization and stress

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 2015. Evaluation of spontaneous generation of allelic variation in soybean in response to sexual hybridization and stress. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 405Á415. Intracultivar variation reported in pure lines of soybean has been hypothesized to result from genetic mechanisms contributing to de novo genetic variation. In this study we have detected allele switching by following segregation patterns of Aconitase-4 isozyme in sexual crosses and pure lines. In sexual crosses, one F 2 plant showed a switch at the Aconitase-4 (Aco4) locus from the expected heterozygous genotype Aco4-ac to Aco4-ab. In the pure lines grown in a honeycomb planting design and treated with an accelerated aging test, multiple cases of allele switching were detected at the Aco4 locus. Both single and double switches were detected that were stable and heritable. These findings indicate that the generation of endogenous variation continues in pure lines as a result of intrinsic genetic mechanisms. With a long-term goal of understanding the genetic nature of the changes, we genetically mapped the Aco4 gene to a 3.3 cM region on Chromosome 11. The corresponding physical region is Â293 kb with 39 predicted genes. Of these, Glyma.11g080600 is of particular interest, as it shows 93% and 88% identity to Medicago truncatula and Arabidopsis aconitase genes, respectively. Further characterization of the soybean Aco4 gene may shed light on genetic mechanisms responsible for allele switching.Key words: Allele switching, soybean, aconitase, linkage mapping, isozyme Espinosa, K., Boelter, J., Lolle, S., Hopkins, M., Goggi, S., Palmer, R. G. et Sandhu, D. 2015. É valuation des variations alle´liques spontane´es chez le soja conse´cutivement a`l'hybridation et au stress. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 405Á415. On a formuleĺ 'hypothe`se que les variations intra-cultivar signale´es chez les ligne´es pures de soja pourraient de´couler de me´canismes ge´ne´tiques autorisant une variation ge´ne´tique de novo. Les auteurs ont identifie´la permutation d'alle`les en suivant la se´gre´gation de l'isozyme aconitase-4 dans les croisements sexuels et les ligne´es pures. Dans les croisements sexuels, un plant de la F 2 pre´sentait une permutation au locus Aconitase-4 (Aco4) du ge´notype he´te´rozygote pre´vu Aco4-ac au ge´notype Aco4-ab. Dans les ligne´es pures cultive´es en quinconce et soumises a`un essai de vieillissement acce´le´re´, les auteurs ont de´tecte´de nombreux cas de permutation d'alle`les au locus Aco4. Des permutations simples et doubles stables et transmissibles ont ainsi e´te´discerne´es. Ces re´sultats indiquent que les variations endoge`nes se poursuivent dans les ligne´es pures en raison de me´canismes ge´ne´tiques intrinse`ques. Dans le but ultime d'e´lucider la nature ge´ne´tique de tels changements, les auteurs ont situe´le ge`ne Aco4 sur une re´gion de 3,3 cM du chromosome 11. La zone physique correspondante mesure environ 293 kb et comprend 39 ge`nes explicatifs. Parmi eux, Glyma.11g080600 reveˆt un inte´reˆt particulier, car il ressemble a`93 % et a`88 % au...

show abstract

Hothead healer and extragenomic information (reply)

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers

Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers

Bio-communication of Plants

Evaluation of spontaneous generation of allelic variation in soybean in response to sexual hybridization and stress

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About