Intervention effectmodel-written summary

For 'bartlett', shoot regeneration did not differ significantly between media containing 5 or 7.5 µM TDZ with 1 µM NAA.

A claim from Induction of Direct Adventitious Shoot Regeneration in Pear (Pyrus communis L.) · 2014

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

For 'bartlett', shoot regeneration did not differ significantly between media containing 5 or 7.5 µM TDZ with 1 µM NAA.

Material
'bartlett'e1
Treatment
5 or 7.5 µM TDZ and 1 µM NAAe0
Outcome
shoot regeneratione0
Comparator
mediae0

Not reportedGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingDirectionValueQualifier

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“differences in shoot regeneration between media containing 5 or 7.5 µM TDZ and 1 µM NAA were not significant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 791–899
t0

“Pear (Pyrus communis L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–79
e1

“regeneration in 'bartlett' (38)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 685–716

Title

Induction of Direct Adventitious Shoot Regeneration in Pear (Pyrus communis L.)

Mahdieh Yousefiara; Maryam Jafarkhani Kermani; Abdolreza Bagheri; et al. Plant Tissue Culture and Biotechnology 2014. doi:10.3329/ptcb.v24i1.19215

Other claims from this paper (5)

Record rev-aa2b218a2d1b166631cbb605bbcd9bfff47e9a8f96dbd53180dbc9a0134cdbb1 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 5 in the model’s answer

Thidiazuron · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
See all 6 papers →

1-naphthaleneacetic acid · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
See all 7 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.