MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1855064647 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n10p159

Kinetin Is the Most Effective Cytokinin on Shoot Multiplication from Cucumber

2015· article· en· W1855064647 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saeid Abu-Romman, Abdullah R. Arabiyyat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinetinExplant cultureShootZeatinCucumisCytokininBotanyMurashige and Skoog mediumBiologyMicropropagationHorticultureChemistryIn vitroAuxin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro shoot multiplication of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) was examined from the nodal explants of 10-day-old aseptic plantlets using Murashige and Skoog (MS) media supplemented with different concentration (0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3 mg L-1) of cytokinins (6-Benzylaminopurine-BAP, Kinetin-Kn, Thidiazuron-TDZ, and Zeatin). Nodal explants of cucumber showed shoot induction and multiplication in response to all cytokinins tried. MS medium containing Kn was the most effective for inducing shoots from nodal explants of cucumber. The maximum rate of regeneration (83%), the highest number of obtained shoots (7.93 shoots/explant) and the longest shoots (3.61 cm) were obtained on MS medium fortified with 1 mg L-1 Kn. The lowest culture responses were recorded for media supplemented with either BAP or Zeatin. In conclusion, using Kn is strongly recommended than using Zeatin, TDZ and BAP to obtain the highest percentage of regeneration, the highest number of shoot/explant, and the highest shoot length for nodal explants of cucumber.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207