B, R. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2020

Dynamics of the COVID -19 Related Publications

BackgroundThis study aims to analyze the dynamics of the published articles and preprints of Covid-19 related literature from different scientific databases and sharing platforms. MethodsThe PubMed, Elsevier, and Research Gate (RG) databases were under consideration in this study over a specific time. Analyses were carried out on the number of publications as (a) function of time (day), (b) journals and (c) authors. Doubling time of the number of publications was analyzed for PubMed "all articles" and Elsevier published articles. Analyzed databases were (1A) PubMed "all articles" (01/12/2019-12/06/2020) (1B) PubMed Review articles (01/12/2019-2/5/2020) and (1C) PubMed Clinical Trials (01/01/2020-30/06/2020) (2) Elsevier all publications (01/12/2019-25/05/2020) (3) RG (Article, Pre Print, Technical Report) (15/04/2020-30/4/2020). FindingsTotal publications in the observation period for PubMed, Elsevier, and RG were 23000, 5898 and 5393 respectively. The average number of publications/day for PubMed, Elsevier and RG were 70.0 {+/-}128.6, 77.6{+/-}125.3 and 255.6{+/-}205.8 respectively. PubMed shows an avalanche in the number of publication around May 10, number of publications jumped from 6.0{+/-}8.4/day to 282.5{+/-}110.3/day. The average doubling time for PubMed, Elsevier, and RG was 10.3{+/-}4 days, 20.6 days, and 2.3{+/-}2.0 days respectively. In PubMed average articles/journal was 5.2{+/-}10.3 and top 20 authors representing 935 articles are of Chinese descent. The average number of publications per author for PubMed, Elsevier, and RG was 1.2{+/-}1.4, 1.3{+/-}0.9, and 1.1{+/-}0.4 respectively. Subgroup analysis, PubMed review articles mean and median review time for each article were <0|17{+/-}17|77> and 13.9 days respectively; and reducing at a rate of-0.21 days (count)/day. InterpretationAlthough the disease has been known for around 6 months, the number of publications related to the Covid-19 until now is huge and growing very fast with time. It is essential to rationalize the publications scientifically by the researchers, authors, reviewers, and publishing houses. FundingNone

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2020

Gene expression profiling of Tea (Camellia sinensis L.) in response to biotic stress using microarrays

The blister blight (BB) and grey blight (GB) diseases are the major biotic stresses, which affecting the plant health, yield and quality of tea. The study aims to understand the gene response of tea plants against destructing foliar diseases in terms of differential gene expression and their pathways through microarray analysis aid by MapMan(R) software. The results of expression profile analysis showed that 235 in BB and 258 for GB genes were differentially expressed (at P<0.05) which involving in gene regulatory function as biotic stress response. Similarly, 76 and 86 differentially expressed genes involving in cellular response during BB and GB diseases, respectively. However, 28 in BB and 9 in GB differentially expressed (P<0.01) genes were putatively involved in biotic stress response. The study also identified differentially expressed 75 transcription factors (TFs) belongs to 23 TFs superfamily act as either transcriptional activators or repressors. The study helps to understand the differential gene expression pattern and its cellular, molecular and biological mechanisms of tea plants of two different diseases based on microarray analysis. Further studies using biotechnological tools on the stress-responsive genes in the germplasm may enable us for development of disease resistance.

plant biology↗