Evaluation of the Enhanced Regeneration System for in vitro regeneration in barley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A simple two-step model for evaluation of in vitro regeneration protocols is proposed based on callus induction and regeneration from immature scutella of two Canadian barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes, AC Metcalfe and SB92559 using the Enhanced Regeneration System (ERS). The number of explants producing embryogenic callus, the number of plants per embryogenic callus and the number of plants per explant were considered. Tissue culture parameters included three combinations of growth regulators, two carbon sources in culture media, and three cold treatment regimes of spikes prior to scutella isolation. Culture medium containing 5 µM 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) and 0.5 µM benzyl adenine (BA) induced the highest percent of embryogenic calli and the highest number of shoots per embryogenic callus from AC Metcalfe. Medium containing 3.75 µM 2,4-D and 0.75 µM BA gave the best response for SB92559. Both genotypes produced more shoots on maltose than on sucrose medium. A 2-d treatment of spikes at 4°C resulted in best response for SB92559. Regeneration response from AC Metcalfe scutella from spikes was unaffected by being subjected to 2, 4 or 6 d of cold. Conditions resulting in best responses from both genotypes were tested on four commercial barley varieties. However, these lines showed inferior regeneration compared to SB92559 and AC Metcalfe. Key words: Hordeum vulgare, scutella, embryogenic callus, shoot production
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".