Paper · 2016 · HortScience

Comparative Organogenic Response of Six Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars

Qingrong Sun; Meijuan Sun; Hongyan Sun; et al.

16
claims
33
verbatim quotes
8
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The organogenesis potential is different among cultivars and must be optimized for individual genotype. Shoot organogenesis capacity from in vitro leaves and root organogenesis capacity of in vitro shoots in six clonal apple rootstock cultivars were compared. The shoot organogenesis capacity was highly genotype dependent. ‘GM256’ was found to be the most responsive genotype for shoot regeneration from leaf explants among the cultivars, showing high regeneration percentage on all tested media. The effects of basal medium composition and cytokinins on shoot regeneration were different depending on rootstock genotype. Optimum regeneration occurred on Murashige and Skoog (MS) basal medium for ‘71-3-150’, and optimum regeneration occurred on Quoirin and Lepoivre (QL) basal medium for ‘60-160’ and ‘ПБ’. Thidiazuron (TDZ) was more effective than 6-benzylaminopurine (BA) for Malus prunifolia (Y), whereas TDZ and BA were not significantly different for the other cultivars. All rootstock cultivars showed high root organogenic capacity. The percentage of rooting reached more than 90% and the mean root number per plantlet ranged from three to five. The optimum rooting medium was different for different rootstock cultivars. Optimum root organogenesis occurred on half-strength QL medium for ‘GM256’ and ‘Y’, and for ‘ПБ’ and ‘JM7’ on one-quarter-strength MS medium.

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 16

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shoot organogenesis capacity was highly genotype dependent.

Outcome
shoot organogenesis capacitye1
Qualifier
highly genotype dependente1

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The shoot organogenesis capacity was highly genotype dependent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 260–322 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GM256 was the most responsive apple rootstock for shoot regeneration from leaf explants.

Material
GM256e2
Outcome
shoot regeneration from leaf explantse2
Direction
most responsivee2
Comparator
the cultivarse2

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“‘GM256’ was found to be the most responsive genotype for shoot regeneration from leaf explants among the cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 324–438 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GM256 showed high shoot regeneration percentage on all tested media.

Outcome
regeneration percentagee3
Direction
highe3
Qualifier
on all tested mediae3

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“showing high regeneration percentage on all tested media”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 440–496 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Optimum shoot regeneration of rootstock 71-3-150 occurred on Murashige and Skoog basal medium.

Material
71-3-150e4
Treatment
Murashige and Skoog (MS) basal mediume4
Outcome
Optimum regeneratione4

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e4

“Optimum regeneration occurred on Murashige and Skoog (MS) basal medium for ‘71-3-150’”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 623–708 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Optimum shoot regeneration of rootstock 60-160 occurred on Quoirin and Lepoivre basal medium.

Material
60-160e5
Treatment
Quoirin and Lepoivre (QL) basal mediume5
Outcome
optimum regeneratione5

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e5

“optimum regeneration occurred on Quoirin and Lepoivre (QL) basal medium for ‘60-160’ and ‘ПБ’”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 714–807 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Optimum shoot regeneration of rootstock ПБ occurred on Quoirin and Lepoivre basal medium.

Material
ПБe5
Treatment
Quoirin and Lepoivre (QL) basal mediume5
Outcome
optimum regeneratione5

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e5

“optimum regeneration occurred on Quoirin and Lepoivre (QL) basal medium for ‘60-160’ and ‘ПБ’”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 714–807 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thidiazuron was more effective than 6-benzylaminopurine for shoot regeneration of Malus prunifolia (Y).

Taxon
Malus prunifoliaMalus prunifoliae1
Material
Ye1
Treatment
Thidiazuron (TDZ)e1
Outcome
shoot regeneratione2
Direction
moree1
Comparator
6-benzylaminopurine (BA)e1

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

Malus prunifolia
Malus prunifolia · TaxonBruce Marlin · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Thidiazuron (TDZ) was more effective than 6-benzylaminopurine (BA) for Malus prunifolia (Y)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 809–900 · show in text ↑
e2

“The effects of basal medium composition and cytokinins on shoot regeneration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 498–574 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Thidiazuron and 6-benzylaminopurine did not differ significantly in shoot regeneration for the other cultivars.

Treatment
TDZe1
Outcome
shoot regeneratione2
Direction
not significantly differente1
Comparator
BAe1

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“whereas TDZ and BA were not significantly different for the other cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 902–977 · show in text ↑
e2

“The effects of basal medium composition and cytokinins on shoot regeneration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 498–574 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All rootstock cultivars showed high root organogenic capacity.

Outcome
root organogenic capacitye1
Direction
highe1

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“All rootstock cultivars showed high root organogenic capacity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 979–1040 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rooting percentage of rootstock cultivars reached more than 90 percent.

Outcome
percentage of rootinge1
Direction
reachede1
Value
more than 90%e1

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The percentage of rooting reached more than 90%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1042–1089 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean root number per plantlet ranged from three to five.

Outcome
mean root number per plantlete1
Value
three to fivee1

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“the mean root number per plantlet ranged from three to five”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1094–1153 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The optimum rooting medium differed among rootstock cultivars.

Outcome
optimum rooting mediume1
Qualifier
different for different rootstock cultivarse1

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The optimum rooting medium was different for different rootstock cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1155–1229 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Optimum root organogenesis of GM256 occurred on half-strength QL medium.

Material
GM256e1
Treatment
half-strength QL mediume1
Outcome
Optimum root organogenesise1

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Optimum root organogenesis occurred on half-strength QL medium for ‘GM256’ and ‘Y’”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1231–1313 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Optimum root organogenesis of Y occurred on half-strength QL medium.

Material
Ye1
Treatment
half-strength QL mediume1
Outcome
Optimum root organogenesise1

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Optimum root organogenesis occurred on half-strength QL medium for ‘GM256’ and ‘Y’”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1231–1313 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Optimum root organogenesis of rootstock ПБ occurred on one-quarter-strength MS medium.

Material
ПБe1
Treatment
one-quarter-strength MS mediume1
Outcome
root organogenesise1

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Optimum root organogenesis occurred on half-strength QL medium for ‘GM256’ and ‘Y’, and for ‘ПБ’ and ‘JM7’ on one-quarter-strength MS medium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1231–1371 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Optimum root organogenesis of rootstock JM7 occurred on one-quarter-strength MS medium.

Material
JM7e1
Treatment
one-quarter-strength MS mediume1
Outcome
root organogenesise1

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Optimum root organogenesis occurred on half-strength QL medium for ‘GM256’ and ‘Y’, and for ‘ПБ’ and ‘JM7’ on one-quarter-strength MS medium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1231–1371 · show in text ↑
t0

“Clonal Apple Rootstock Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–72 · show in text ↑

Thidiazuron · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 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.