Genotypic Variation in the Micropropagation of Sri Lankan Exacum Hybrids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protocols for in vitro propagation are reported for interspecific hybrids of Exacum L., derived from Sri Lankan taxa. Four genotypes were used to evaluate the effects of MS (Murashige and Skoog) and WP (Woody Plant) media supplemented with 2-iP, BA, or KIN during establishment and multiplication phases. In addition, rhizogenesis and associated root characteristics were evaluated using MS medium supplemented with NAA or IBA. Overall, either 2-iP or BA was significantly more effective than kinetin in establishment and shoot proliferation with significant genotype × treatment interactions present. Maximum multiplication rates were achieved in the following genotype-hormone combinations: E-6, 2 mg·L-1 BA (4.5 per explant); E-23, E-32, and E-37, 2 mg·L-1 2-iP (3.5, 2.5, and 3.6 per explant, respectively). In vitro rhizogenesis was greatest in liquid MS medium supplemented with 1 mg·L-1 NAA while significantly reduced rooting was observed with IBA supplements. Our results demonstrate that micropropagation of Sri Lankan Exacum hybrids is possible and that adequate multiplication and rooting percentages can be achieved. However, the high level of genetic variation identified requires genotype-specific media modifications. Chemical names used: benzyladenine (BA); 2-isopentenyladenine (2-iP); indole-3-butyric acid (IBA); α-naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA); kinetin (KIN).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".