2002. In Vitro Regeneration and Agrobacterium Transfromation of Echinacea purpurea Leaf Explants. Trends in New Crops and New Uses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Echinacea has gained considerable attention because of its increasing economic value and use as a me-dicinal plant. The genus Echinacea, Asteraceae, is represented by eleven taxa found in the United States and in south central Canada. Echinacea purpurea is the most widespread species (McGregor 1968) and the most widely cultivated medicinal species of the genus (McKeown 1999). Echinacea species have long been recog-nized as important medicinal plants and were used by Native Americans for the treatment of many diseases, including colds, toothaches, snake bites, rabies, and wound infections (Bauer and Wagner 1991). The pharmacological activity of Echinacea extracts has been widely studied with over 350 published studies to date (Briskin 2000) together providing strong evidence for an immune modulating activity of these extracts. However, little scientific research has been directed toward understanding the biosynthetic pathways of the several classes of compounds that are thought to be responsible for the biological activity of Echinacea extracts or the physiology regulating their accumulation. The transfer of foreign genes into plants has provided new ways to study regulation of development and biosynthetic processes. Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation is preferred because of its sim-plicity and efficiency in providing stable integration of transferred DNA into the plant genome. In vitro shoot regeneration of E. purpurea has been reported from petiole explants (Choffe et al. 2000a) and leaf tissue (Koroch et al. 2001) while root organogenesis has been obtained from hypocotyl and cotyledon explants (Choffe et al. 2000b). The objective of this work was to develop an efficient in vitro regeneration method and an Agrobacterium tumefaciens transformation method for E. purpurea leaf explants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".