Paper · 2008 · Plant Breeding

A cytological study on aluminium‐treated wheat anther cultures resulting in plants with increased Al tolerance

F. Bakos; É. Darkó; G. Ascough; et al.

8
claims
15
verbatim quotes
10
citations
4
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract The in vitro selection of microspores and microspore‐derived structures under Al stress is one way to improve the Al tolerance of crops. In our study, cytological alterations caused by Al were examined in anther cultures of a commercial wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) variety ‘Mv Pálma’, and the efficiency of in vitro selection was demonstrated. Although the anther walls retarded the appearance of toxicity symptoms, cytological changes similar to those observed in root cells (inhibition of cell division, intense vacuolisation, occurrence of micronuclei and cell wall thickening) were detected in the microspores. The severity of Al toxicity and the efficiency of selection depended on the Al concentration and the mode of treatment. Single Al treatments (0.6 and especially 1.6 mM) allowed DH lines with increased Al tolerance to be selected. Repeated Al treatment severely inhibited the cell division of the microspores and it was lethal even at a concentration as low as 0.6 mM. The results show that microspore embryogenesis can be exploited for studying the cytological effect of Al and for increasing the Al tolerance of wheat.

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 8

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Anther walls delayed the appearance of Al toxicity symptoms.

Organ / stage
anther wallse0
Outcome
appearance of toxicity symptomse0
Direction
retardede0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the anther walls retarded the appearance of toxicity symptoms”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 364–425 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–46 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Al-treated microspores showed inhibited cell division, vacuolisation, micronuclei and cell wall thickening.

Organ / stage
microsporese0
Treatment
Ale0
Outcome
inhibition of cell division, intense vacuolisation, occurrence of micronuclei and cell wall thickeninge0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cytological changes similar to those observed in root cells (inhibition of cell division, intense vacuolisation, occurrence of micronuclei and cell wall thickening) were detected in the microspores”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 427–624 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–46 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Al toxicity severity depended on concentration and treatment mode.

Treatment
Al concentration and the mode of treatmente0
Outcome
severity of Al toxicitye0

Not reportedDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The severity of Al toxicity and the efficiency of selection depended on the Al concentration and the mode of treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 626–744 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–46 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Selection efficiency depended on Al concentration and treatment mode.

Treatment
Al concentration and the mode of treatmente0
Outcome
efficiency of selectione0

Not reportedDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The severity of Al toxicity and the efficiency of selection depended on the Al concentration and the mode of treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 626–744 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–46 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Single Al treatments of 0.6 and especially 1.6 mM selected DH lines with increased Al tolerance.

Material
DH linese0
Treatment
Single Al treatments (0.6 and especially 1.6 mM)e0
Outcome
increased Al tolerancee0

Not reportedComparatorValue

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Single Al treatments (0.6 and especially 1.6 mM) allowed DH lines with increased Al tolerance to be selected”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 746–854 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–46 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Repeated Al treatment severely inhibited microspore cell division.

Treatment
Repeated Al treatmente0
Outcome
cell division of the microsporese0
Direction
severely inhibitede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Repeated Al treatment severely inhibited the cell division of the microspores”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 856–933 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–46 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Repeated Al treatment was lethal even at 0.6 mM.

Treatment
Repeated Al treatmente0
Outcome
lethale0
Value
0.6 mMe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Repeated Al treatment severely inhibited the cell division of the microspores and it was lethal even at a concentration as low as 0.6 mM”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 856–992 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–46 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Microspore embryogenesis can be used to study Al cytology and increase wheat Al tolerance.

Treatment
microspore embryogenesise0
Outcome
increasing the Al tolerance of wheate0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“microspore embryogenesis can be exploited for studying the cytological effect of Al and for increasing the Al tolerance of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1016–1144 · show in text ↑

aluminium atom · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

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

aluminium atom · cytology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 1 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 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.