Propagation Methods Affect Fruit Morphology and Antioxidant Properties but Maintain Clonal Fidelity in Lowbush Blueberry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The berry morphology (size and weight), phytochemical content (polyphenols, flavonoids, anthocyanins, and proanthocyanidins), and antioxidant activity of lowbush blueberry ( Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) wild clone QB 9C and cultivar Fundy, propagated by tissue culture (TC) and softwood cutting (SC), were studied over two growing seasons to evaluate the effect of propagation methods on fruit yield and the content of antioxidant metabolites. Number of flower clusters, number of berries and berry weight per plant, diameter and weight of individual berry were higher in SC plants than those of TC plants. Significant interaction between genotypes and propagation methods were observed for total phenolic and flavonoid content of fruits. Berries from TC plants contained more polyphenols and flavonoids than those of SC plants. Twenty microsatellite markers were used to assess the clonal fidelity of TC regenerants and SC plants. The identical monomorphic amplification profiles within the TC plants of each genotype confirmed the clonal fidelity of micropropagated blueberry plants. These results indicate that propagation methods affected the morphology and antioxidant metabolites but maintained trueness-to-type genetic makeup in blueberry.
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".