Shoot regeneration from various explants of horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A protocol is described for the adventitious shoot bud regeneration from leaf and stem explants in Aesculus hippocastanum . Effect of different media (Heller, WPM, Rugini and DKW) and growth regulators (BA, TDZ and NAA) combinations on shoot organogenesis were examined. Culture medium content had a significant effect on shoot regeneration in Aesculus . The highest shoot number and length was achieved on Rugini and WPM medium. Adventitious shoot formation was observed in all types of explants. Regeneration frequency and shoot number depended on explant type and growth regulators. The highest regeneration (100%) and the highest shoot bud number (9.7) were recorded in stem explants on WPM medium with 8.9 μM BA + 0.5 μM NAA. Generally, TDZ was less effective on shoot regeneration in stem and leaf explants compared to BA. The addition of NAA to the culture medium improved shoot regeneration from stem discs. Rooting of elongated shoots was significantly increased (68.1%) on full-strength WPM medium supplemented with 2.7 μM NAA. Rooted plantlets were acclimatized successfully under greenhouse conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".