Silicon in the Embriogenic Potential of Callus in vitro of Passiflora edulis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adding silicon to the culture medium may contribute, to improve many growth parameters including embryogenesis and organogenesis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the embryogenic potential of passion fruit in vitro (Passiflora edulis f. Flavicarpa O. Deg), submitted to different concentrations of silicon. Nodal segments of plants were inoculated at five concentrations of silicic acid added to the culture medium, 0.0; 0.5; 1.0; 1.5 and 2.0 g L-1. After 60 days, the visual characteristics (% contamination, callus, bud, root and oxidation), cytochemical test and microanalysis of X-rays evaluated. Concentrations of 0.5; 1.0 and 2.0 g L-1 of silicon did not differ in relation to callus formation. By the cytochemical test, all treatments presented embryogenic cells indicated by the reaction to acetic Carmine and, little reaction to the Evans blue associated with cell death. By the microanalysis of X-rays, the nutrients sulfur and phosphorus, presented significant absorption responses at the concentration of 1.5 g L-1 of silicon in comparison to the other concentrations. The silicon added to the culture medium has a response in the formation of cells with embryogenic potential in nodal segments of passion fruit. The concentration of 2.0 g L-1 of silicon acid (H4SiO4) has a high embryogenic potential in passionflower cells, Passiflora edulis f. Flavicarpa O. Deg.
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".