In vitro Propagation and Genetic Homogeneity Assessment of Dendrobium crepidatum Lindley & Paxton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro propagation is one of the most dependable methods to develop true-to-type plants for the commercial and conservation aspects. This study aims to produce the genetically identical plantlets of Dendrobium crepidatum Lindley and Paxton using in vitrodeveloped shoot explants. Coconut water (5 - 10%) supplemented Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium responded towards effective shoot formation with BAP (1.0 - 2.0 mg/l) and NAA (0.1 - 0.5 mg/l). NAA (0.5 - 1.0 mg/l) alone or in combination with BAP was found to be effective for root initiation in MS medium. Four RAPD (Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA) primers viz., G04, G10, G17 and G18 showed 100% genetic homogeneity in plants obtained from in vitro-developed shoot explant. However, G10, G17 and G18 RAPD primers showed 60, 25 and 100% genetic polymorphisms respectively in plants obtained from callus. Plants obtained from callus were genetically polymorphic where somaclonal variation might occur. This study reported the successful genetic homogeneity of shoot explant-derived plants of D. crepidatum. Hence, the present study has validated the establishment of standard in vitro protocol for significant propagation of superior genetically indistinguishable D. crepidatum for viable conservation and commercialization. Plant Tissue Cult. & Biotech. 32(1): 1-11, 2022 (June)
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".