Study on the Effect of Osmosis-regulating Substances and Organic Appendices on Somatic Embryogenesis in Wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Objective] The study aimed to reveal the effect of osmosis-regulating substances and organic appendices on somatic embryogenesis in wheat. [Method] The suitable concentration combination of appendices was optimized by adding different concentrations of osmosis-regulating substances including mannitol, sorbitol and organic appendices such as Gln, CH and LH, into the somatic embryogenesis in wheat. [Result] The mannitol or sorbitol lower than 40 g/L was helpful for improving somatic embryogenesis; there was no significant difference in the induction rate of somatic embryogenesis when 300-500 mg/L Gln、CH or LH was respectively added into the induced medium, while somatic embryogenesis could be enhanced dramatically in the presence of 500 mg/L Gln together with 300 mg/L CH. [Conclusion] Somatic embryogenesis could be improved to some extent by different concentrations of osmosis-regulating substances and organic appendices, which laid foundation for establishing a more perfect system of somatic embryogenesis in wheat.
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".