MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899995514 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n12p287

Chitosan Elicitation for Enhancing of Vincristine and Vinblastine Accumulation in Cell Culture of Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don

2018· article· en· W2899995514 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pawnpirun Pliankong, Padungsak Suksa-Ard, Surawit Wannakrairoj

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWalailak University
KeywordsCatharanthus roseusChitosanVinblastineVincristineDry weightSucroseChemistryKinetinMurashige and Skoog mediumCell cultureVincaShrimpFood scienceBotanyBiochemistryBiologyTissue cultureChemotherapyIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don is an important herbal plant. There are two important alkaloids, vinblastine and vincristine, use in anti-cancer drugs. In this study production of the two alkaloids was enhanced in C. roseus cell cultures, in a Murashige and Skoog (MS) liquid medium supplemented with 1.5 mg/L 2,4-D, 0.5 mg/L kinetin and 30 g/L sucrose, by adding 0, 50, 100, 250 or 500 mg/L medium molecular weight chitosan or chitosan derived from shrimp shell. After 14 days of culture, the cell suspension at stationary phase in the 100 mg/L medium molecular weight chitosan could produce the highest amounts of vinblastine and vincristine at 4.15 and 5.48 µg/mg cell dry weight, respectively. At the same time, the controls (0 mg/L chitosan) produced the two alkaloids at only 2.43 and 2.49 µg/mg cell dry weight, respectively. For chitosan from shrimp shell, it was found that 100 mg/L chitosan could lead to the highest quantity of 4.09 µg vinblastine/mg cell dry weight. The highest amount of 5.47 µg vincristine/mg cell dry weight was obtained when 250 mg/L chitosan was added.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207