MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Zeatin overcomes thidiazuron-induced inhibition of shoot elongation and promotes rooting in strawberry culture <i>in vitro</i>

2006· article· en· W2304040890 on OpenAlexaff
Samir C. Debnath

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetiole (insect anatomy)SepalShootExplant cultureZeatinBiologyThidiazuronBotanyCallusCytokininMurashige and Skoog mediumBasal shootMicropropagationIn vitroAuxinStamen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SummaryThe effects of 0, 2, 4 or 8 µM thidiazuron (TDZ) and explant type on adventitious shoots regenerated on excised leaf disks, sepals (calyx) and petiole halves of greenhouse-grown ‘Bounty’ strawberry (Fragaria ananassa Duch.) were studied. A moderate concentration (2 – 4 µM TDZ) supported bud and shoot regeneration without an intermediary callus phase on young expanding sepals, or on leaf disks with the adaxial side touching the culture medium, or on petiole halves placed horizontally with their cut-sides in contact with the medium, all maintained for 14 d in the dark. Sepals proved more effective than leaf discs and petiole segments for regenerating shoots. Another experiment compared the effects of 0, 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 µM TDZ or zeatin on shoot proliferation and rooting of sepal-derived adventitious shoots. Media containing TDZ generally promoted more callus formation and suppressed elongation and rooting of shoots. Shoots proliferated and roots developed best when explants were cultured in medium supplemented with 1 or 2 µM zeatin. An in vitro cloning protocol that enables shoot proliferation and rooting of strawberry explants in the same medium is expected to be applied for commercial micropropagation.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations46
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Horticultural Science and BiotechnologySame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207