Paper · 2013 · Genetika

In vitro conservation of two plant species (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh. and Rubus fruticosus L.) shoot tips by encapsulation dehydration

Djurdjina Ruzic; Tatjana Vujovic; Radosav Cerovic

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

In vitro grown shoot tips of cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) and blackberry ?Cacanska Bestrna? (Rubus fruticosus L.) were tested for regrowth after cryopreservation using encapsulation dehydration method. Apical, 2-3 mm long shoot tips, were encapsulated in alginate beads composed of 3, 5 and 10% (w/v) alginic acid sodium salt in calcium-free liquid Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium containing 1.0 mg l-1 benzyladenine, 0.1 mg l-1 indole-3-butyric acid and 0.1 mg l-1 gibberellic acid. Polymerization was done in liquid MS medium with 100 mM CaCl2 for 30 min at room temperature. Encapsulated shoot tips were pre-treated in liquid MS medium with 0.75 or 1 M sucrose for 24 h in growth room and dehydrated for 4 and 8 h (29% and 20% moisture content respectively) before rapid immersion in liquid nitrogen. Upon thawing which involved placing the cryovials in the air current of the laminar airflow cabinet for 2 min, the beads were directly transferred to regrowth medium. In cherry plum, osmotic dehydration in 0.75 M sucrose followed by 8-hour desiccation gave the highest regrowth (60%) of explants encapsulated in 3% and 5% alginate beads. However, in comparison with cherry plum, blackberry displayed significantly lower capacity for regrowth after cryopreservation under described experimental conditions. In this genotype, osmotic dehydration in 1 M sucrose followed by 8-hour desiccation resulted in the highest regrowth (16.7%) of explants encapsulated in 5% alginate beads. Cryopreserved shoot tips of both genotypes multiplied in the three subcultures had normal morphology and similar multiplication capacity in comparison with non-cryopreserved shoots.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In cherry plum, osmotic dehydration in 0.75 M sucrose followed by 8-hour desiccation gave the highest regrowth (60%).

Taxon
cherry plumPrunus cerasiferae0
Treatment
osmotic dehydration in 0.75 M sucrose followed by 8-hour desiccatione1
Outcome
regrowthe1
Direction
higheste1
Value
60%e1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In vitro grown shoot tips of cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) and blackberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–81 · show in text ↑
e1

“In cherry plum, osmotic dehydration in 0.75 M sucrose followed by 8-hour desiccation gave the highest regrowth (60%) of explants encapsulated in 3% and 5% alginate beads”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 980–1149 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Blackberry had significantly lower capacity for regrowth after cryopreservation than cherry plum.

Taxon
blackberryRubuse2
Outcome
capacity for regrowth after cryopreservatione2
Direction
lowere2
Comparator
cherry plume2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Rubus
Rubus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)George Chernilevsky · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In vitro grown shoot tips of cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) and blackberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–81 · show in text ↑
e2

“However, in comparison with cherry plum, blackberry displayed significantly lower capacity for regrowth after cryopreservation under described experimental conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1151–1317 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In blackberry, osmotic dehydration in 1 M sucrose followed by 8-hour desiccation gave the highest regrowth (16.7%).

Taxon
blackberryRubuse0
Treatment
osmotic dehydration in 1 M sucrose followed by 8-hour desiccatione3
Outcome
regrowthe3
Direction
higheste3
Value
16.7%e3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Rubus
Rubus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)George Chernilevsky · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In vitro grown shoot tips of cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) and blackberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–81 · show in text ↑
e3

“In this genotype, osmotic dehydration in 1 M sucrose followed by 8-hour desiccation resulted in the highest regrowth (16.7%) of explants encapsulated in 5% alginate beads”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1319–1489 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cryopreserved cherry plum shoot tips had normal morphology and similar multiplication capacity to non-cryopreserved shoots over three subcultures.

Taxon
cherry plumPrunus cerasiferae0
Treatment
Cryopreservede4
Outcome
multiplication capacitye4
Direction
similare4
Qualifier
normal morphologye4
Comparator
non-cryopreserved shootse4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus cerasifera
Prunus cerasifera · TaxonAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In vitro grown shoot tips of cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) and blackberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–81 · show in text ↑
e4

“Cryopreserved shoot tips of both genotypes multiplied in the three subcultures had normal morphology and similar multiplication capacity in comparison with non-cryopreserved shoots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1491–1671 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cryopreserved blackberry shoot tips had normal morphology and similar multiplication capacity to non-cryopreserved shoots over three subcultures.

Taxon
blackberryRubuse0
Treatment
Cryopreservede4
Outcome
multiplication capacitye4
Direction
similare4
Qualifier
normal morphologye4
Comparator
non-cryopreserved shootse4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Rubus
Rubus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)George Chernilevsky · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In vitro grown shoot tips of cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) and blackberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–81 · show in text ↑
e4

“Cryopreserved shoot tips of both genotypes multiplied in the three subcultures had normal morphology and similar multiplication capacity in comparison with non-cryopreserved shoots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1491–1671 · show in text ↑

sucrose · growth · Rubus (bramble)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

drought · growth · Prunus cerasifera (cherry plum)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

in vitro · pest · Rubus (bramble)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

drought · growth · Rubus (bramble)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.