Effect of Different Media on in vitro Shoot Regeneration from Various Explants of Lilium longiflorum Cv. Elite, Brunello, Cordelia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lilium (Lilium longiflorum Thunb.) belongs to the family Liliaceae and is a native of Northern Hemisphere (up to South Canada and Siberia). Conventionally, lilium can easily be propagated by sexual and asexual methods of propagation but these prevalent methods are not capable of meeting the increasing demand in domestic and global market. Generally, lilium is propagated through bulbs which has bottlenecks like high cost of planting material, infected from seed borne and other diseases like mosaic, grey mould, etc. So, in vitro multiplication of lilium is utmost important. Lily can be easily regenerated from explants The objective of present study was to identify the best media and the explant among scales and nodal segments belonging to the three different cultivars viz., Elite, Brunello, Cordelia where maximum number of shoots could be regenerated. Methods: The present investigation was carried out in the Tissue Culture Laboratory of the Centre for Research and Application in Plant Tissue Culture. Twenty-five media combinations were used to study their effect on in vitro shoot regeneration from various explants of Lilium longiflorum cultivars. Two type of explants viz. scales and nodal segments were aseptically excised from Elite, Brunello, Cordelia cultivars of Lilum and cultured on Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium containing different concentrations and combinations of 6-benzyl amino purine (BAP), kinetin and Naphthalene Acetic Acid (NAA). Result: In cultivars Elite and Brunello, the maximum number of shoots were observed when nodal segments were used on media combination i.e., LM-8 (MS+BAP 3.0 mg/l+NAA0.1 mg/l). In cultivar Cordelia, scales showed the maximum response on media LM-24 (MS+Kinetin 2.0 mg/l+NAA 0.1 mg/l).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".