Paper · 2003 · The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology

Micropropagation of apple rootstock M.9 EMLA using bioreactor

Debasis Chakrabarty; E. J. Hahn; Y. J. Yoon; et al.

7
claims
11
verbatim quotes
59
citations
5
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

SummaryA simple protocol for in vitro mass propagation of apple rootstock M.9 EMLA has been developed using an automated, low-cost bioreactor system. Comparative studies between semi-solid agar and bioreactor culture (continuous immersion with net and temporary immersion in liquid media using ebb and flood, with and without air exchanges inside the bioreactor chamber) revealed that shoot multiplication and growth were more efficient in continuous immersion (with net) bioreactor culture. Although the multiplication rate was highest in continuous immersion culture, a large number of micropropagated apple shoots showed symptoms of hyperhydricity. In case of temporary immersion culture (ebb and flood system) hyperhydricity was reduced as compared with continuous immersion. The percentage of shoots with hyperhydric leaves could be further reduced by air exchanges made over the culture period in a temporary immersion culture (ebb and flood) in air-lift-balloon type bubble bioreactor (BTBB). In vitro nodal cuttings of apple rootstock M.9 EMLA from bioreactor culture were hydroponically cultured for 30 d and more than 90% plants were rooted and acclimatized successfully. To assess the genetic fidelity of plantlets regenerated from nodal explants during bioreactor culture, the RAPD patterns were compared with that of greenhouse grown control plantlet and revealed genetic uniformity of the regenerants.

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 7

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous immersion with net improved apple shoot multiplication and growth relative to semi-solid agar and other bioreactor cultures.

Material
M.9 EMLAt0
Treatment
continuous immersion (with net) bioreactor culturee0
Outcome
shoot multiplication and growthe0
Direction
more efficiente0
Comparator
semi-solid agar and bioreactor culturee0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“Comparative studies between semi-solid agar and bioreactor culture (continuous immersion with net and temporary immersion in liquid media using ebb and flood, with and without air exchanges inside the bioreactor chamber) revealed that shoot multiplication and growth were more efficient in continuous immersion (with net) bioreactor culture.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 150–491 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple rootstock M.9 EMLA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous immersion gave the highest multiplication rate among the cultures compared.

Treatment
continuous immersion culturee0
Outcome
multiplication ratee0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“Although the multiplication rate was highest in continuous immersion culture, a large number of micropropagated apple shoots showed symptoms of hyperhydricity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 492–651 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Many micropropagated apple shoots in continuous immersion culture showed hyperhydricity.

Treatment
continuous immersion culturee0
Outcome
a large number of micropropagated apple shoots showed symptoms of hyperhydricitye0

Not reportedDirection

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“Although the multiplication rate was highest in continuous immersion culture, a large number of micropropagated apple shoots showed symptoms of hyperhydricity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 492–651 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Temporary immersion reduced hyperhydricity relative to continuous immersion.

Treatment
temporary immersion culture (ebb and flood system)e0
Outcome
hyperhydricitye0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
continuous immersione0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“In case of temporary immersion culture (ebb and flood system) hyperhydricity was reduced as compared with continuous immersion.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 652–779 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–25 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Air exchanges during temporary immersion further reduced the percentage of shoots with hyperhydric leaves.

Treatment
air exchangese0
Outcome
percentage of shoots with hyperhydric leavese0
Direction
reducede0
Qualifier
temporary immersion culture (ebb and flood)e0

Not reportedComparator

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“The percentage of shoots with hyperhydric leaves could be further reduced by air exchanges made over the culture period in a temporary immersion culture (ebb and flood) in air-lift-balloon type bubble bioreactor (BTBB).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 780–999 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–25 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

More than 90% of hydroponically cultured nodal cuttings rooted and acclimatized after 30 days.

Material
M.9 EMLAe0
Treatment
hydroponically cultured for 30 de0
Outcome
plants were rooted and acclimatized successfullye0
Value
more than 90%e0

Not reportedDirection

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“In vitro nodal cuttings of apple rootstock M.9 EMLA from bioreactor culture were hydroponically cultured for 30 d and more than 90% plants were rooted and acclimatized successfully.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1000–1181 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

RAPD comparison with a greenhouse control showed genetic uniformity of regenerated apple plantlets.

Material
M.9 EMLAt0
Outcome
genetic uniformity of the regenerantse0
Comparator
greenhouse grown control plantlete0

Not reportedDirection

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“the RAPD patterns were compared with that of greenhouse grown control plantlet and revealed genetic uniformity of the regenerants.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1285–1415 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple rootstock M.9 EMLA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–44 · show in text ↑

application · pest · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

41 papers: 30 positive, 11 negative or no effect

29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

37 papers more in this group

See all 41 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.