MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531480272 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.35.3.394d

037 In Vitro Plant Regeneration for `Marion' Blackberry

2000· article· en· W2531480272 on OpenAlexaff
Rengong Meng, Chad E. Finn

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExplant cultureKinetinShootPetiole (insect anatomy)BiologyCytokininBotanyZeatinphotoperiodismMurashige and Skoog mediumHorticultureAuxinMicropropagationRegeneration (biology)In vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

`Marion' is the most important blackberry cultivar in the world, primarily due to its outstanding processing characteristics. Ideally, `Marion' could be enhanced via transformation while maintaining its fruit quality. As a successful in vitro regeneration is the prerequisite for genetic transformation, a series of experiments were conducted to optimize the conditions for in vitro regeneration for `Marion' blackberry. Parameters studied included types (three cytokinins: BA, kinetin, and zeatin; four auxins: IBA, IAA, NAA, and 2,4-D) and concentrations of plant growth regulators, explants (leaf and petiole), medium formulations (MS, WPM, and BMM), and the duration of TDZ pretreatment (3 to 6 weeks) of in vitro-grown stock plants. The highest shoot regeneration rate (65.7%) and highest number of shoots (5.1 shoots/explant) were obtained under the following conditions: stock plants were pretreated with TDZ (1 m m ) for 3 weeks, followed by leaf explants dark pretreatment for 1 week on the regeneration medium (WPM with 5 mM BA and 0. 5 m m IBA). After dark treatment, regeneration plates were placed under 16-h photoperiod at light intensity of ≈50 μmol·m -2 ·s -1 at 23 + 2 °C for 4 weeks.

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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207