MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887947021 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2018-0079

Male functionality in <i>Garcinia celebica</i> L., a candidate ancestor species of mangosteen (<i>G. mangostana</i> L.)

2018· article· en· W2887947021 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pornsawan Sutthinon, Lacey Samuels, Upatham Meesawat

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPrince of Songkla University
KeywordsGarcinia mangostanaPollenBiologyTapetumGerminationMicrosporeBotanyAnthesisCalloseGametophytePollinationStamenPetalCell wallTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L.) is widely cultivated for its prized fruit, but its origins are unclear as this crop has not been found in the wild. Seashore mangosteen (Garcinia celebica L.) has been proposed as a candidate ancestral species for the mangosteen male parent in a hypothesized hybridization event, yet the functionality of the male organs in perfect flowers of G. celebica has not been characterized. The objective of this study was to describe pollen development in G. celebica using light, scanning, and transmission electron microscopy techniques. Male gametophyte development led to viable pollen at anthesis. The tapetum was of the secretory type, and it started to degrade following meiosis II, which corresponded to the complete encasement of a callose wall around the microspore tetrad. Pollen viability, demonstrated with 2,3,5-triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC) assays, was 68%. An in-vitro pollen germination assay was developed, and the rate of germination was remarkably similar to the viability (68%). Male functionality was clearly confirmed by both the high rate of pollen viability and germination. The occurrence of stigmatic exudates on pistillode and its pollen features are consistent with biotic pollination. The perfect flower of G. celebica is thus a functional male flower.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207