MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2554570552 · doi:10.5539/jmbr.v6n1p100

Impact of Biostimulant and Synthetic Hormone Gibberellic acid on Molecular Structure of Solanum melongena L.

2016· article· en· W2554570552 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Magdah Ganash

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Molecular Biology Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Growth Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Abdulaziz University
KeywordsMelongenaSolanumGibberellic acidMolecular massYeastHorticultureBiologyChlorophyllBotanyBiochemistryChemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparison study between the application of gibberellic acid (GA3) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a biostimulant on the growth and molecular structures of Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) has been carried out through a pot experiment. Growth of Solanum melongena L. increased with exogenous application of GA3 followed by yeast. Chlorophyll contents of plant were enhanced with yeast treatment compared with GA3 application and control. Activitiy of antioxidant enzymes, catalase and peroxidase was increased with increasing concentration of GA3 and S. cerevisiae application particularly with using GA3. HPLC analysis showed the highest concentration of salicylic acid in plant treated with GA3 (104.20 mg) followed by S. cerevisiae (70.00 mg) application compared with the untreated plant (57.86 mg). Six common polypeptide bands were observed in treated and untreated S. melongena plants, their molecular weights were 16, 17, 34, 90, 120 and 150 KDa. While the untreated S. melongena plant is characterized by the presence of 8 polypeptide bands, their molecular weights were 19, 24, 32, 33, 36, 50, 109 and 133 KDa. Yeast treatment increased the number of protein bands to 12 instead of 8 in the control plant with molecular weights 18, 125, 74, 69, 62, 31, 30, 27, 25, 23, 20 and 18 KDa. Three polypeptide bands with molecular weights 25, 72 and 125 KDa were detected in S. cerevisiae and GA3 treated plants. PCR analysis showed that total of 16 amplified fragments was visualized in the tested samples. Eight fragments with different molecular weights, four of them are monomorphic bands while the others are polymorphic unique bands. Plant sample sprayed with yeast showed 5 fragments range in molecular weight between 426 to 1766 bp. Only one of these fragments was unique polymorphic fragment. Four monomorphic fragments range in molecular weight from 426 to 1213 bp were showed up in plant sample sprayed with gibberellic acid.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Molecular Biology Research→Same topicPlant Growth Enhancement Techniques→French-language works237,207→