Antioxidants and Phenolic Secretion in Sugarcane Genotypes Shoots Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secretion of phenolic compounds is a major limitation for sugarcane in vitro shoot culture, causing a loss of regenerative capacity and subsequent cell death. In this study, micropropagation and phenolic secretion of four Saccharum genotypes were evaluated in presence of different antioxidants. Aseptic cultures of S. officinarum (PI 184794 and PI 88652), S. sinense (PI 29109) and S. robustum (UNK R65P35) were propagated on medium containing antioxidants, citric acid (100 mg/L), L-cysteine (100 mg/L), polyvynylpirrolidone (300 mg/L) and L-glutathione (50 mg/L) in two consecutive subculture cycles. Interaction between genotypes and antioxidants was significant in both cycles. All genotypes showed good shoot formation, shoot vigor and color, except in PI 88652 which had less shoot development in both the presence and absence of the antioxidants tested. PI 184794 displayed the highest shoot proliferation in the presence of citric acid, and UNK R65P35 produced more shoots per explant in the 2nd subculture. For S. sinense (PI 29109), in both subcultures, most shoots were observed in the presence of polyvynylpirrolidone. Medium discoloration due to phenolic secretion was reduced in the presence of citric acid and polyvynylpirrolidone. The type of secreted phenolic compounds differed with genotype as the Principal Component Analysis of cultivation media separated PI 88652 from PI 29109 and UKN R65P35. Phenolic compounds varied in composition and were secreted at various levels as a function of genotype and antioxidant type. Loadings plots indicated the genotype and antioxidant separations were broadly driven by flavonoid compounds.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".