MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056412813 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v6n1p65

Cadmium-Induced Changes in Germination, Seedlings Growth, and DNA Fingerprinting of in vitro Grown Cichorium pumilum Jacq.

2013· article· en· W2056412813 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wesam Al Khateeb

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYarmouk University
KeywordsProlineLipid peroxidationCallusGerminationShootCichoriumRAPDCadmiumChemistryBiologyBotanyHorticultureFood scienceBiochemistryAntioxidantPopulationAmino acidGenetic diversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of Cd2+ on germination, growth, proline content, lipid peroxidation, and DNA fingerprinting of in vitro grown Cichorium pumilum. Results showed that seed germination was highly inhibited by cadmium (down to 47% at 1600 µM CdCl2). In addition, root and shoot growth showed significant decreases in response to CdCl2 level. Analysis of proline content and lipid peroxidation showed that with increasing CdCl2 levels in the growing medium, the amount of proline accumulation and lipid peroxidation increased gradually. Total chlorophyll content was found to increase only at higher tested levels of Cd2+ (800 and 1600 µM). The results also show that Cd2+ inhibits callus growth at different levels starting from 50 µM CdCl2 compared with the control in the callus growth experiment. Callus growth ceased completely at 200 µM CdCl2 and above. Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis showed DNA alterations in Cd2+-treated C. pumilum microshoots compared with the control. The results of this experiment showed that Cd2+ stress affects several physiological, biochemical, and molecular processes in C. pumilum.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207