Pomegranate Micropropagation, Callogenesis and Genetic Integrity Assessment Using Simple Sequence Repeat Markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the awareness of pomegranate health benefits has grown exponentially; nonetheless the existing propagation methods remain a challenge to supply adequate suitable planting materials needed for commercial production. Micropropagation can lead to mass production of plantlets and callus-mediated in vitro regeneration can open avenues for the use of genetic engineering to improve this crop. The aim of this study was to evaluate appropriate conditions for pomegranate micropropagation, callogenesis and use Simple Sequence Repeat markers to screen for somaclonal variation. Cytokinins (Benzylaminopurine, Kinetin and Thiadiazol-5ylurea) were tested for shoot induction from nodal explants while auxins (1-Naphthaleneacetic acid, Indole-3-butyric acid and Indole-3-acetic acid) were tested for root induction of in vitro regenerated shoots. 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid combined with Benzylaminopurine was assessed for their ability to induce callus from cotyledon and leaf explants. Genetic integrity between mother plant, callus and in vitro regenerated shoots were assessed using eight Simple Sequence Repeat markers. Maximum number of shoots and leaves were obtained on full strength Murashige and Skoog media with 6.9 µM kinetin. The highest number of roots was achieved on half strength Murashige and Skoog media with 4.9 µM Indole-3-butyric acid and the longest root was got on half strength Murashige and Skoog media with 5.3 µM Indole-3-acetic acid. Leaves and cotyledons demonstrated to be potential explants for callus formation at all hormonal combination levels tested. Eight out of 13 amplified alleles were polymorphic. A wider genetic variation was found with similarity coefficient range of 0.46-0.92. More somaclonal variation was in regenerated shoots compared to callus.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".