Comparative anatomy and morphology of <i>Vitis vinifera</i> (Vitaceae) somatic embryos from solid‐ and liquid‐culture‐derived proembryogenic masses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontogeny of somatic embryos of grapevine (Vitis vinifera) produced from solid- and liquid-culture-derived proembryogenic masses (PEM) was compared using light and scanning electron microscopy. Somatic embryos produced from solid-medium-derived PEM (SPEM) had large cotyledons, little or no visible suspensor structure, and a relatively undeveloped concave shoot apical meristem, whereas those from liquid-medium-derived PEM (LPEM) had smaller cotyledons, a distinct suspensor, and a flat-to-convex shoot apical meristem. The convex shoot apical meristem in LPEM-derived somatic embryos formed as early as the heart stage of development; it was 4-6 cell layers deep and rich in protein. Suspensors persisted in fully developed and mature LPEM-derived somatic embryos. The SPEM-derived somatic embryos exhibited dormancy, as do mature zygotic embryos, which also have a rudimentary suspensor, whereas LPEM-derived embryos were not dormant. We hypothesize that the presence of a persistent suspensor in LPEM-derived somatic embryos modulates development, ultimately resulting in rapid germination and a high plant-regeneration rate.
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".