MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1931081484 · doi:10.4236/abb.2015.610066

Effects of Media Composition and Auxins on Adventitious Rooting of Bienertia sinuspersici Cuttings

2015· article· en· W1931081484 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Anne Northmore, Marie Leung, Simon Dich Xung Chuong

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Bioscience and Biotechnology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsCuttingAuxinBotanyTransplantingBiologyVegetative reproductionChemistryHorticultureSowing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An efficient in vitro method for rapid vegetative propagation of Bienertia sinuspersici, one of four terrestrial species of family Chenopodiaceae capable of performing C4 photosynthesis within a single cell, was developed. Cuttings of B. sinuspersici were used to examine the effects of Murashige and Skoog (MS) media strength and auxins on adventitious root formation. Half-strength MS medium was determined to be ideal for adventitious root formation in Bienertia cuttings. Although cuttings cultured in medium containing 5.0 mg/L α-naphthalene acetic acid (NAA) promoted the highest number of adventitious roots, cuttings cultured in medium supplemented with 1.0 mg/L indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) produced the longest adventitious roots and had the highest survival rate upon transplanting to soil. Histological analysis revealed variations in the root anatomy generated by the various auxins which may affect adventitious root formation and subsequent establishment of cuttings in soil. Overall, the established procedure provides a simple and cost-effective means for the rapid propagation of the single-cell C4 species B. sinuspersici.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Bioscience and BiotechnologySame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207