Development of Cost Effective In Vitro Regeneration Protocol of Malaxis acuminata D. Don a Therapeutically Important Orchid Using Pseudobulbs as Explant Source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This communication reports the in vitro culture of pseudobulb segments of Malaxis acuminata D. Don. and screening of some low cost substrata as alternative to agar. About 8-10 week old pseudobulb from the in vitro sourced plants were harvested and longitudinally cut into two halves and cultured. Within 5-6 week of culture, about 98 percent of pseudobulb segments responded positively and formed as many as 11 shoot buds per explants on MS medium enriched with sucrose (3%, w/v), casein hydrolysate (100 mg L-1) and ?-naphthalene acetic acid (NAA) + N6 benzyl adenine (BA) (6 µM each in combination). Incorporation of lower activated charcoal (< 0.3%) in the initiation medium did not promote shoot bud formation but a concentration of 0.3% (w/v) promoted healthy root formation and pigmentation of the plantlets. The shoot buds were converted into rooted plantlets and distinct pseudobulbs on medium containing sucrose (3%), and NAA and BA (3 µM each in combination) where as many as 18 shoot buds, protocorm-like bodies (PLBs) were developed per subculture. Among the three alternative substrata incorporated in the regeneration medium, regenerative response on ‘foam disk’ as substratum was competitive with agar gelled medium while regeneration on coconut coir and forest litter were underperformed. Production cost could be substantially reduced (about a fourth) by using foam as agar alternative. The transplants were maintained in a poly-shade (~75% shade) for about 8 week before transferring to the natural habitat where about 75% of the transplants survived.
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) | 0.001 | 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".