Paper · 1989 · Journal of Horticultural Science

Regeneration fromin-vitroleaves of ‘Conference’ and other pear cultivars (Pyrus communisL.)

S. Predieri; F. Fasolo Fabbri Malavasi; A. J. Passey; et al.

7
claims
17
verbatim quotes
39
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

SummaryRegeneration of shoots from in-vitro grown leaf tissues of the pear cv. Conference was achieved at rates of up to 40%. The highest regeneration percentage was achieved using a phytohormone combination of benzylamino purine (5 mg 1−1) and 1-naphthalene acetic acid (1.0 mg 1−1) on a basal medium of Murashige and Skoog, to which had been added 200 mg I−1 of the antibiotic cefotaxime. The percentage regeneration was reduced when a higher concentration of cefotaxime (400 mg 1−1) was used. Cefotaxime had little beneficial effect on regeneration at a lower concentration of 1-naphthalene acetic acid (0.5 mg l−1). Regenerated shoots were easily micropropagated, rooted and transplanted to soil. To date, the plants have a true-to-type phenotypic appearance. Regeneration was also achieved with other cultivars—‘Abbé Fetel’, ‘Doyenne d’Hiver’, ‘Doyenne du Comice’ and ‘Passé Crassane’—but percentage regeneration was lower and, apart from ‘Passé Crassane’, the regenerated shoots were weak and could not be subcultured.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shoot regeneration from in-vitro leaves of pear cv. Conference reached up to 40%.

Taxon
Pyrus communisPyrus communist0
Material
Conferencee1
Organ / stage
in-vitro grown leaf tissuese1
Outcome
Regeneration of shootse1
Value
up to 40%e1

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

t0

“other pear cultivars (Pyrus communisL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–91 · show in text ↑
e1

“Regeneration of shoots from in-vitro grown leaf tissues of the pear cv. Conference was achieved at rates of up to 40%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 7–124 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The highest regeneration percentage was obtained with benzylamino purine (5 mg 1−1) and 1-naphthalene acetic acid (1.0 mg 1−1).

Taxon
Pyrus communisPyrus communist0
Treatment
a phytohormone combination of benzylamino purine (5 mg 1−1) and 1-naphthalene acetic acid (1.0 mg 1−1)e2
Outcome
regeneration percentagee2
Direction
higheste2

Not reportedComparator

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

t0

“other pear cultivars (Pyrus communisL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–91 · show in text ↑
e2

“The highest regeneration percentage was achieved using a phytohormone combination of benzylamino purine (5 mg 1−1) and 1-naphthalene acetic acid (1.0 mg 1−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 126–283 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A higher cefotaxime concentration (400 mg 1−1) reduced the percentage regeneration compared with 200 mg I−1.

Taxon
Pyrus communisPyrus communist0
Treatment
a higher concentration of cefotaxime (400 mg 1−1)e3
Outcome
percentage regeneratione3
Direction
reducede3
Comparator
200 mg I−1 of the antibiotic cefotaximee4

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

t0

“other pear cultivars (Pyrus communisL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–91 · show in text ↑
e3

“The percentage regeneration was reduced when a higher concentration of cefotaxime (400 mg 1−1) was used”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 391–494 · show in text ↑
e4

“200 mg I−1 of the antibiotic cefotaxime”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 350–389 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cefotaxime had little beneficial effect on regeneration at a lower naphthalene acetic acid concentration (0.5 mg l−1).

Taxon
Pyrus communisPyrus communist0
Outcome
little beneficial effect on regeneratione5

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

t0

“other pear cultivars (Pyrus communisL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–91 · show in text ↑
e5

“Cefotaxime had little beneficial effect on regeneration at a lower concentration of 1-naphthalene acetic acid (0.5 mg l−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–618 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Regenerated shoots were easily micropropagated, rooted and transplanted to soil.

Taxon
Pyrus communisPyrus communist0
Organ / stage
Regenerated shootse6
Outcome
micropropagated, rooted and transplanted to soile6

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

t0

“other pear cultivars (Pyrus communisL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–91 · show in text ↑
e6

“Regenerated shoots were easily micropropagated, rooted and transplanted to soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 620–699 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Regenerated pear plants have a true-to-type phenotypic appearance.

Taxon
Pyrus communisPyrus communist0
Outcome
true-to-type phenotypic appearancee7

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

t0

“other pear cultivars (Pyrus communisL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–91 · show in text ↑
e7

“To date, the plants have a true-to-type phenotypic appearance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 701–762 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Regeneration percentage in other pear cultivars was lower than in Conference.

Taxon
Pyrus communisPyrus communist0
Material
other cultivarse5
Outcome
percentage regeneratione6
Direction
lowere6
Comparator
Conferencee1

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

t0

“other pear cultivars (Pyrus communisL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–91 · show in text ↑
e5

“Regeneration was also achieved with other cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 764–815 · show in text ↑
e6

“but percentage regeneration was lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 890–927 · show in text ↑
e1

“Regeneration of shoots from in-vitro grown leaf tissues of the pear cv. Conference was achieved at rates of up to 40%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 7–124 · show in text ↑

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

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

cefotaxime · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

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

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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.