Study Regarding the in Vitro Regeneration and Use Perspectives in Some Valeriana officinalis L. Genotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the researchers was to evaluate the regeneration possibilities of the species Valeriana officinalis L. from the point of view of “in vitro” cultivation of the species, as well as the influence of genotypes and of the culture environment on the “in vitro” reaction of the species. The biological material used in the process of research was made up of cultivated and spontaneous forms of Valeriana officinalis L. present in the collection of the University of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. The studied genotypes were: Valeriana officinalis, Volgensis, Sambucifolia, Collina, Rossica, Magurele 100, Moscova 835 with different geographical provenience. For the “in vitro” culture of Valeriana officinalis L. explants stemming from 2-4 week-old plants were used. The explants were formed of fragments of stem measuring 0.2-0.5 cm and leaf fragments 0.4-0.6 cm in length and 0.3-0.5 cm wide. The results obtained were different, according to the hormone balance: callus or direct risogenesis from the inoculated explants. Also we tested the regenerative possibilities from cell suspension from callus and roots with future possibilities for volatile oils extraction from in vitro suspension. The culture environment used was Murashige-Skoog, 1962, with different hormonal variations as follows: V0 – Mt. Murashige-Skoog culture media; V1 – 10 mg/L naftalen acetic acid (NAA) and 0.1 mg/L benzyl amino purine (BAP); V2 – 1 mg/L NAA and 1mg/L BAP; V3 – 0.1 mg/L NAA and 1mg/L BAP.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".