The role of sucrose during maturation of black spruce (<i>Picea mariana</i>) and white spruce (<i>Picea glauca</i>) somatic embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was conducted to understand the role of sucrose in the medium on the maturation of black spruce and white spruce somatic embryos. A maturation medium containing 6% sucrose, which hydrolyzed into glucose and fructose, gave significantly more embryos than a medium containing 3.16% of each glucose and fructose. Preventing the complete sucrose hydrolysis by a daily transfer of the tissues onto fresh medium significantly decreased the yield of somatic embryos compared to when sucrose was allowed to complete its hydrolysis. This reduction was not due to the manipulation of the tissues during the transfer, since a daily in situ transfer did not affect embryo production. To verify if the better embryo production observed on a medium containing 6% sucrose was due to the increasing osmotic pressure of the medium, this increasing osmotic pressure was simulated with a sequence of media containing different concentrations of glucose and fructose. Unexpectedly and for both species, this simulation did not improve somatic embryo production, which stayed similar to the one obtained on constant osmotic pressure. To understand these results, embryos produced on the different treatments were analyzed in terms of sucrose, glucose, fructose and starch levels and protein contents. The embryo carbohydrate content was independent from the carbohydrate used in the maturation medium. However, embryos matured on 6% sucrose allowed to hydrolyze during the maturation period contained significantly more soluble and insoluble proteins than embryos matured on any other treatment. Furthermore, embryos with a higher protein content also exhibited a higher epicotyl appearance frequency. The role of sucrose as a regulatory factor during the maturation of spruce somatic embryos is discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".