Doubled haploidy methodology for three forage grasses [crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.), hybrid bromegrass (Bromus riparius x B. inermis), and meadow bromegrass (Bromus riparius Rehm.)]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Doubled haploidy (DH) methodology is used in many plant species to accelerate crop improvement and cultivar development; however not all species are amenable to the tissue culture technique. Experiments were undertaken to develop DH protocols for three perennial grasses [crested wheatgrass ( Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.), hybrid bromegrass ( Bromus riparius x B. inermis ), and meadow bromegrass ( Bromus riparius Rehm.)]. The initial experiment screened these forage grass species to established wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) microspore culture protocols. Following the initial screen, several factors influencing microspore embryogenesis were evaluated. These included genotype, donor plant conditions, developmental stage of the microspore, pretreatments, media composition, and culture conditions. For regeneration of the embryos to plants, media composition and culture conditions were assessed. Microspore-derived embryos/calli as well as green haploid/doubled haploid plants were regenerated from all three forage grasses. Differences were observed between species and genotypes within species in terms of embryogenic response. Modifications to the initial wheat DH protocol included the donor plant conditions, developmental stage of the microspore to late uninucleate to early binucleate and media composition. Regenerated plants were grown in the greenhouse.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".