Androgenesis-Based Doubled Haploidy: Past, Present, and Future Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Androgenesis, which entails cell fate redirection within the microgametophyte, is employed widely for genetic gain in plant breeding programs. Moreover, androgenesis-responsive species provide tractable systems for studying cell cycle regulation, meiotic recombination, and apozygotic embryogenesis within plant cells. Past research on androgenesis has focused on protocol development with emphasis on temperature pretreatments of donor plants or floral buds, and tissue culture optimization because androgenesis has different nutritional requirements than somatic embryogenesis. Protocol development for new species and genotypes within responsive species continues to the present day, but slowly. There is more focus presently on understanding how protocols work in order to extend them to additional genotypes and species. Transcriptomic and epigenetic analyses of induced microspores have revealed some of the cellular and molecular responses required for or associated with androgenesis. For example, microRNAs appear to regulate early microspore responses to external stimuli; trichostatin-A, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, acts as an epigenetic additive; ά-phytosulfokine, a five amino acid sulfated peptide, promotes androgenesis in some species. Additionally, present work on gene transfer and genome editing in microspores suggest that future endeavors will likely incorporate greater precision with the genetic composition of microspores used in doubled haploid breeding, thus likely to realize a greater impact on crop improvement. In this review, we evaluate basic breeding applications of androgenesis, explore the utility of genomics and gene editing technologies for protocol development, and provide considerations to overcome genotype specificity and morphogenic recalcitrance in non-model plant systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".