Morphology, phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) plants as affected by in vitro and ex vitro propagation methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goyali, J. C., Igamberdiev, A. U. and Debnath, S. C. 2013. Morphology, phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of lowbush blueberry ( Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) plants as affected by in vitro and ex vitro propagation methods. Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 1001-1008. The lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.), a commercially important crop in eastern Canada and the United States of America, is native to North America. It is one of the richest sources of antioxidant compounds and has been reported to be a potential component in reducing the incidence of cancers and cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of propagation methods on morphological characters, phenolic content and antioxidant activity. A lowbush blueberry clone, QB 9C, and a cultivar, Fundy, were studied over two growing seasons after being propagated by conventional softwood cutting (SC) and by tissue culture (TC). Significant interactions among genotypes, propagation methods and growing seasons were observed for number of flower buds, total flavonoid (TFC) and proanthocyanidin (PAC) contents and antioxidant capacity. Propagation method interacted significantly with genotypes for the number of stems per plant and total phenolic (TPC) and chlorophyll contents, and with growing season for number of flower buds, TFC and PAC. TC plants produced higher number of stems and branches compared with SC plants. TPC, TFC, PAC, chlorophyll content and antioxidant activity were found in higher levels in the leaves of QB 9C compared with those of Fundy plants. The juvenile characteristics of TC plants which are triggered by growth hormones and readily available nutrients of culture media may be responsible for differences in morphological traits and antioxidant activity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".