Lodgepole pine: the first evidence of seed-based somatic embryogenesis and the expression of embryogenesis marker genes in shoot bud cultures of adult trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Of the various alternatives for cloning elite conifers, somatic embryogenesis (SE) appears to be the best option. In recent years, significant areas of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forest have been devastated by the mountain pine beetle (MPB) in Western Canada. In an attempt to establish an SE propagation system for MPB-resistant lodgepole pine, several families displaying varying levels of resistance were selected for experimentation involving shoot bud and immature seed explants. In bud cultures, eight embryogenic lines were induced from 2 of 15 genotypes following various treatments. Genotype had an important influence on embryogenic culture initiation, and this effect was consistent over time. These lines were identified by microscopic observation and genetic markers. Despite the abundance of early somatic embryos, the cultures have yet to develop into mature embryos. In contrast, immature zygotic embryos (ZEs) cultured from megagametophytes initiated SE at an early dominance stage via nodule-type callus in 1 of 10 genotypes. As part of the study, putative embryogenesis-specific genes, WOX2 (WUSCHELL homeobox 2) and HAP3A, were analyzed in cultures of both shoot bud explants and ZEs. On the basis of these analyses, we postulate that PcHAP3A was expressed mainly in callus and may be involved in cell division, whereas WOX2 was expressed mainly in embryonal mass (EM)-like tissues. The findings from this study, based on molecular assessment, suggest that the cell lines derived from bud cultures were truly EM. Moreover, these experimental observations suggest that PcWOX2 could be used as an early genetic marker to discriminate embryogenic cultures from callus.
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".