ArticlePlant cell reports2009
Field performance evaluation and genetic integrity assessment of cryopreserved papaya clones.
Article in Plant cell reports, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plant Genome Editing and the Relevance of Off-Target Changes.Plant physiology · 2020Article
- Review
- Cryopreservation enhances embryogenic capacity of Gentiana cruciata (L.) suspension culture and maintains (epi)genetic uniformity of regenerants.Plant cell reports · 2011Article
- Fertile plant regeneration from cryopreserved calli of Oryza rufipogon Griff. and assessment of variation in the progeny of regenerated plants.Plant cell reports · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper is the first report of field performance and evaluation of morphological traits following cryopreservation in four genotypes of Carica papaya (Z6, 97, TS2 and 35). It also describes the successful establishment of in vitro plantlets following vitrification-based cryopreservation of shoot tips and their acclimatisation through to field establishment. Cloned plants resulting from untreated controls, as well as controls taken at three other stages of the cryopreservation process (dissection, pre-treatment, plant vitrification solution 2 (PVS2) treatment) and cryopreserved plants were established to ensure a rigorous appraisal of any variation. Results indicate no differences between any of the control plants or cryopreserved plants for either growth performance or morphology. In addition, both randomly amplified DNA fingerprinting and amplified DNA methylation polymorphism markers were used to assess any genomic or methylation changes in genotype 97 at four different developmental stages post cryopreservation (in vitro, acclimatisation and field). Only small genomic DNA modifications (0-8.3%) were detected in field stage plants and methylation modifications (0-4.3%) were detected at both the in vitro and field stages for samples treated with PVS2 or cryopreservation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19593571What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.