A One-Step<i>In Vitro</i>Cloning Procedure for Cranberry (<i>Vaccinium macrocarpon</i>Ait.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An in vitro cloning protocol that enables shoot proliferation and rooting of cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.) genotypes in the same medium was developed. Plantlets of four clones (NC197, NC201, NC216, and NC230) from natural stands in Newfoundland and Labrador and one cultivar, Stevens, were obtained in vitro from nodal explants on a nutrient medium containing the plant growth regulators, N6-[2-isopentenyl]adenine (2iP) or zeatin. Zeatin was more effective than 2iP for shoot proliferation and rooting. The genotypes differed in terms of shoot and root number per explant, length and vigor, number of leaves per shoot, and callus formation at the base of explants; this was manifested with various concentrations of 2iP and zeatin over two culture periods. Shoots proliferated and roots developed best when nodal segments were cultured in the medium supplemented with 2 μM to 4 μM zeatin. Subculturing improved the number of shoots and roots per responding explant, shoot height, root length, and root vigor. Changing the positioning of explants on the medium from vertically upright to horizontal increased shoot number and callus size, but decreased the rooting incidence, roots per explant, and root vigor. The protocol proposed from this study is expected to be applicable for propagating a wide range of cranberry germplasm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".