MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2392500819

Defend Effects of Melatonin on Protoplasts of Gentiana macrophylla Under UV-B Irridiation

2015· article· en· W2392500819 on OpenAlexaff
Zhang Laiju

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtoplastDNA damageComet assayMelatoninDNAMolecular biologyGel electrophoresisGentianaBiologyIrradiationChemistryBotanyBiochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comet assay,named single cell gel electrophoresis assay( SCGE),was used to analyze the effect of melatonin( MEL) on the DNA repair ability of Gentiana macrophylla Pall. protoplasts. Cell was irradiated with different doses of ultraviolet-B radiation,DNA damage is indicated by Tail DNA%. MEL was added to the protoplast suspension at 0,1,10 μmol·L- 1final concentration,the irradiance of UV-B is 0. 5 W·m- 2. Experiment was divided into two parts. The first group,protoplasts was radiated by UV-B with different times( 0,5,10,30,60,120 s) and incubated in the dark60 min,electrophoresis. The second group,protoplast was irradiated by UV-B 40 s and incubated in the dark with different times( 0,1,2,3,4,6h),and then electrophoresis. In the range of 5 to 30 s,the same radiation dose,the higher concentration of MEL,the lower Tail DNA%. After cells were cultured for 1 to 6 hours,Tail DNA% which the samples was treated with MEL were always lower than the positive control's,and the Tail DNA% showed an inverse relationship with MEL concentration. A dose-related protective effect of MEL was observed in our experiment and MEL reduces damage of cells after irradiation by UV-B,promote the repair of DNA. In the study,the first use of SCGE technology further revealed that MEL improved the resistance of plant to environmental stress.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Agricultural SciencesSame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207