MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W280235700 · doi:10.36953/ecj.2011.120313

A reliable rapid protocol for characterization of in vitro totipotency in Spilanthes oleracea

2011· article· en· W280235700 on OpenAlexaff
Santosh Kumar Singh, Satish Verma, Md. Aslam Siddiqui, Abhishek Mathur, Sheeba, Brij Mohan Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment Conservation Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerbal Medicine Research Studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootExplant cultureMurashige and Skoog mediumBiologyMicropropagationIn vitroSubculture (biology)BotanyKinetinChemistryHorticultureBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spilanthes oleracea is an important medicinal herb and is also called ‘Toothache Plant’ or ‘Eye Ball Plant’. It is used to prepare herbal formulation to cure many diseases. Its property to heal the dental wounds can be exploited as an alternative to synthetic medicines used presently. An efficient protocol for in vitro shoot multiplication of Spilanthes oleracea has been developed from axillary bud explants. Nodal segments, from young plants, were taken as explants; shoot multiplication was induced on slightly modified Murashige and Skoog’s (MS) medium supplemented with 6- Benzyl amino purine, (BAP, 0.5 ppm) and Naphthalene Acetic Acid, (NAA, 0.1 ppm) and BAP (0.5 ppm) + Indole 3-Acetic Acid, (IAA, 0.3 ppm). Shoot proliferation could be induced using different combinations of BAP, IAA and NAA. Shoots were further multiplied through continued subculture of nodal segments with sprouted shoots. Micro-shoots were rooted in the basal medium supplemented with NAA (1.71 µM) alone and BAP (0.44 µM) + NAA (1.0 µM) concentration.) Survival of in vitro grown plantlets 2 months after transplantation in the pots, containing equal parts of sand and top soil, was found to be 97 per cent.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment Conservation JournalSame topicHerbal Medicine Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207