Paper · 2012 · Acta Agrobotanica

Effect of growth regulators and other components of culture medium on morphogenesis of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in unfertilised ovule in vitro cultures

Magdalena Tomaszewska-Sowa

4
claims
9
verbatim quotes
14
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The aim of the present research was to optimise the process of plant regeneration from unfertilised ovules in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). A two-stage method was applied which involved preculture in liquid MS medium and culture on solid media. The study evaluated the effectiveness of different groups of growth regulators, agar and gelrite on the morphogenesis of explants. To do so, the culture was maintained on 21 MS media containing auxins (NAA, IBA, 2,4-D), cytokinins (BAP, KIN, TDZ), antiauxin (TIBA) as well as solidifying substances at different concentrations and combinations. Varied effectiveness of callus and shoot formation was observed depending on the medium used. The highest efficiency of shoot formation was recorded on the media containing 4.4 μM BAP, 0.09 M sucrose, and 0.04% gelrite. The formation of roots was induced when exposed to 14.8 μM IBA and 0.049 μM 2iP, and the percentage of rooted shoots ranged from 0.0 to 65.2%, depending on the growth regulator combination used for shoot regeneration.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Callus and shoot formation varied in effectiveness across the culture media tested.

Organ / stage
unfertilised ovulese0
Treatment
different groups of growth regulators, agar and gelritee1
Outcome
callus and shoot formatione2
Qualifier
depending on the medium usede2

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“plant regeneration from unfertilised ovules in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 63–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“The study evaluated the effectiveness of different groups of growth regulators, agar and gelrite on the morphogenesis of explants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 246–375 · show in text ↑
e2

“Varied effectiveness of callus and shoot formation was observed depending on the medium used”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 591–683 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The media containing 4.4 μM BAP, 0.09 M sucrose and 0.04% gelrite gave the highest efficiency of shoot formation.

Treatment
media containing 4.4 μM BAP, 0.09 M sucrose, and 0.04% gelritee3
Outcome
efficiency of shoot formatione3
Direction
higheste3

Not reportedComparator

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

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“plant regeneration from unfertilised ovules in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 63–139 · show in text ↑
e3

“The highest efficiency of shoot formation was recorded on the media containing 4.4 μM BAP, 0.09 M sucrose, and 0.04% gelrite”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 685–809 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The media with 14.8 μM IBA and 0.049 μM 2iP induced root formation.

Treatment
14.8 μM IBA and 0.049 μM 2iPe4
Outcome
formation of rootse4
Direction
inducede4

Not reportedComparator

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

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“plant regeneration from unfertilised ovules in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 63–139 · show in text ↑
e4

“The formation of roots was induced when exposed to 14.8 μM IBA and 0.049 μM 2iP”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 811–890 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The percentage of rooted shoots ranged from 0.0 to 65.2% across growth regulator combinations.

Outcome
percentage of rooted shootse5
Value
0.0 to 65.2%e5
Qualifier
depending on the growth regulator combination used for shoot regeneratione5

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

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“plant regeneration from unfertilised ovules in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 63–139 · show in text ↑
e5

“the percentage of rooted shoots ranged from 0.0 to 65.2%, depending on the growth regulator combination used for shoot regeneration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 896–1027 · show in text ↑

sucrose · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

N-benzyladenine · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree

10 papers: 10 positive, 0 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

in vitro · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.