Establishment of a cryopreserved gene bank of European elms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryopreservation of a core collection of 444 elm (Ulmus spp.) clones in liquid nitrogen was carried out by two laboratories participating in a European project of conservation of elm genetic resources. Plant material, collected in nine European countries, represented a large sample of the genetic diversity within three European elm species and their hybrids. The cryopreservation technique used in both laboratories involved the stepwise freezing of cryotubes containing dormant buds. Comparisons with fresh buds showed that the cryopreservation treatment had no negative effect on the viability and regrowth potential of frozen buds. Tests on a random sample of 26 clones showed that direct regrowth of cryopreserved buds (i.e., through propagation by microcuttings) of Ulmus minor and Ulmus laevis was possible; conversely, Ulmus glabra could only be regrown through micrografting. Most thawed explants from all 26 clones survived through the whole cultivation phase and were successfully transferred to the field. A calculation of costs indicates that cryopreservation of elm buds is economically competitive to field clonal archives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".