MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stimulation effects of salts on growth in suspension culture of a mangrove plant, Sonneratia alba, compared with another mangrove, Bruguiera sexangula and non-mangrove tobacco BY-2 cells

2008· article· en· W2156773128 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yoshifumi Kawana, Hamako Sasamoto

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Biotechnology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMangroveBiologyBotanySuspension cultureHorticultureDry weightBruguieraSuspension (topology)Cell cultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of a wide range of concentrations of four salts (NaCl, KCl, MgCl2, CaCl2) on cell proliferation were investigated in suspension culture of a mangrove plant, Sonneratia alba. The results were compared to those obtained with suspension culture of another mangrove species, Bruguiera sexangula and non-mangrove tobacco BY-2 cells. Effects of salts on suspension cells were determined with both large scale (LS) method using a 100 ml culture flask, and/or a small scale (SS) method using a 24-well culture plate. Settled cell volume (SCV), packed cell volume (PCV), wet weight (WW) and dry weight (DW) were measured in LS method and PCV was in SS method. High concentrations of NaCl (25–100 mM) and MgCl2 (25 mM) showed strong stimulatory effects on growth in S. alba suspension culture, and low concentrations of KCl, MgCl2 and CaCl2 (10 mM) also showed similar stimulatory effects. In contrast, a remarkable stimulatory effect was not observed in B. sexangula and tobacco BY-2 cells. Cationic ions are effective for the growth of suspension cells in both mangrove species S. alba and B. sexangula. The SS method using multi-well culture plate and micro-tube measurement method developed in this report, can be applied for analysis of factors for stress tolerance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BiotechnologySame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207