MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559620049 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2016-0362

Influence of species and hybrid status on induction of somatic embryogenesis in <i>Castanea</i>

2016· article· en· W2559620049 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine Therese Holtz, A. Ryan Tull, Scott A. Merkle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Interactions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackcrossingSomatic embryogenesisBiologyOpen pollinationExplant cultureBotanyHorticulturePollinationGeneticsIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American chestnut (AC; Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh.) once dominated the forests of eastern North America prior to the introduction of chestnut blight in the late 19th century. A somatic embryogenesis (SE) system developed for American chestnut is potentially applicable for clonally propagating blight-resistant trees produced by The American Chestnut Foundation’s hybrid backcross breeding program. In this program, AC trees are hybridized with blight-resistant Chinese chestnut (CC; Castanea mollissima Blume) trees, followed by multiple generations of backcrossing to AC trees. It is possible, however, that the proportion of CC parental contribution in the hybrid backcross material could affect the success of SE using the AC protocol. Over three years of culture initiations, we tested the effects of the relative parental contributions of AC and CC on the success of SE induction using our standard AC culture initiation protocol and, subsequently, a published protocol for SE in European chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.). With our standard AC protocol, open-pollinated AC and open- and control-pollinated hybrid backcross BC3F3 seed explants, as well as open-pollinated BC2 seed explants, successfully produced embryogenic tissue, while CC, F1, and BC1 explants did not. The European chestnut protocol produced Chinese chestnut embryogenic tissue and, subsequently, somatic embryos. The first BC3F3 somatic seedlings are currently growing in field tests.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant and Fungal Interactions ResearchFrench-language works237,207