Paper · 2002 · PubMed

Effects of cryopreservation on developmental competency, cytological and molecular stability of citrus callus.

Yu-Jin Hao; Chun-Xiang You; Xiu-Xin Deng

5
claims
17
verbatim quotes
37
citations
4
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Cell suspensions of twelve citrus genotypes were successfully cryopreserved by vitrification. All genotypes survived cryopreservation with >90% viability and the surviving cells of some genotypes regenerated somatic embryos better than the controls. Single-cell sibling lines of cultivar Newhall were used for cytological and molecular examination. It was found that the ploidy constitution remained genetically stable and that no DNA sequence variation was detected by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) assay after cryopreservation. In addition, the methylation sensitive amplified polymorphism (MSAP) assay indicated that cryopreservation caused a significant change in DNA methylation status.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All citrus genotypes survived cryopreservation with more than 90% viability.

Taxon
citrusCitrust0
Treatment
cryopreservatione0
Outcome
viabilitye0
Direction
survivede0
Value
>90%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Citrus
Citrus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ellen Levy Finch ( Elf ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All genotypes survived cryopreservation with >90% viability”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 94–153 · show in text ↑
t0

“citrus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–102 · show in text ↑
e1

“citrus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 27–33 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Surviving cells of some genotypes regenerated somatic embryos better than controls.

Taxon
citrusCitrust1
Treatment
cryopreservationt0
Outcome
regenerated somatic embryose0
Direction
better thane0
Qualifier
some genotypese0
Comparator
the controlse0

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

Citrus
Citrus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ellen Levy Finch ( Elf ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the surviving cells of some genotypes regenerated somatic embryos better than the controls.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 158–249 · show in text ↑
t0

“cryopreservation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–27 · show in text ↑
t1

“citrus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–102 · show in text ↑
e1

“Cell suspensions of twelve citrus genotypes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ploidy constitution remained stable following cryopreservation.

Taxon
citrusCitrust1
Treatment
cryopreservationt0
Outcome
ploidy constitutione0
Direction
stablee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Citrus
Citrus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ellen Levy Finch ( Elf ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the ploidy constitution remained genetically stable”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 367–418 · show in text ↑
t0

“cryopreservation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–27 · show in text ↑
t1

“citrus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–102 · show in text ↑
e1

“Cell suspensions of twelve citrus genotypes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No DNA sequence variation was detected after cryopreservation.

Taxon
citrusCitrust0
Treatment
cryopreservatione0
Outcome
DNA sequence variatione0
Direction
no DNA sequence variatione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Citrus
Citrus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ellen Levy Finch ( Elf ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“no DNA sequence variation was detected by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) assay after cryopreservation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 428–541 · show in text ↑
t0

“citrus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–102 · show in text ↑
e1

“citrus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 27–33 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cryopreservation significantly changed DNA methylation status.

Taxon
citrusCitrust0
Treatment
cryopreservatione0
Outcome
DNA methylation statuse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Citrus
Citrus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ellen Levy Finch ( Elf ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cryopreservation caused a significant change in DNA methylation status.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 632–703 · show in text ↑
t0

“citrus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–102 · show in text ↑
e1

“citrus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 27–33 · show in text ↑

in vitro · growth · CitrusPositive and negative results

21 papers: 14 positive, 7 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 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.