Relation between Amino Acids Profiles and Recalcitrancy of Cell Growth or Salt Tolerance in Tissue and Protoplast Cultures of Three Mangrove Species, <i>Avicennia alba</i>, <i>Bruguiera sexangula</i>, and <i>Sonneratia alba</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amino acids profiles were investigated in tissues, cultured cells, i.e. callus or suspension cells, and their protoplasts of three mangrove species, Avicennia alba, Bruguiera sexangula, and Sonneratia alba. Original tissues of cultured cells of three mangrove species were cotyledons and hypocotyls, leaves, and cotyledons, respectively. In protoplasts isolated from cultured cells, glutamine and alanine were the major amino acids. Different contents of glycine, proline and serine were observed among protoplasts of three mangrove species. Large differences in the major amino acids were found among cultured cells and their protoplasts while no difference was found between callus and suspension cells independent of additional salt in culture medium. Protoplasts of original tissues, young leaves and cotyledons, contained alanine and glutamine and/or asparagine. In suspension cells of B. sexangula, total contents of amino acids were low while their protoplasts showed similar value as of other samples. Protoplasts of leaf and cotyledons of A. alba and cotyledons of A. lanata, A. marina and S. alba were also investigated. The total contents of amino acids and their profiles might be related to the recalcitrance for the growth and salt tolerance or halophilic nature of cells and basal media used for the maintenance of cell cultures or protoplast cultures of the mangrove species. This is the first report on callus induction from hypocotyls of A. alba.
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) | 0.001 | 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".