A One-Step<i>In Vitro</i>Cloning Procedure for Cranberry (<i>Vaccinium macrocarpon</i>Ait.)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it