Can mimicking sexual reproduction solve problems with recalcitrance in in vitro propagation of tree species?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clonal propagation by in vitro means of adult forest trees is often difficult or not possible with current technology. This problem, generally described as recalcitrance, has been approached from several angles by researchers and reviewers. However, it has not yet been reviewed from the point of view that it may eventually be possible to overcome recalcitrance by mimicking the rejuvenation process that occurs during sexual reproduction. It is suggested that somatic cell nuclear transfer, in a manner similar to the one used for animal cloning, could be helpful. Furthermore, application of controlled stress and autophagy, or inducing apomixes by halting natural or artificially induced meiosis before chromosome segregation, could perhaps assist in overcoming recalcitrance. The discussion below indicates that mimicking the sexual or apomictic process in vitro is worthy of further exploration and should be evaluated as a means of genetically improving tree species, especially those of high economic value. Studies along these lines may also be helpful in improving our knowledge of the epigenetic, cytogenetic, and genomic mechanisms involved.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".