ArticlePlanta2010
Cryopreservation of coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) zygotic embryos does not induce morphological, cytological or molecular changes in recovered seedlings.
Article in Planta, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Method for Enhancing Coconut (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed at exploring the fidelity of coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) plants recovered from cryopreservation. Zygotic embryos from various different cultivars were cryopreserved following four successive steps, namely: rapid dehydration, rapid freezing, rapid thawing and in vitro recovery followed by acclimatization. At the end of the acclimatization period, the seedlings were compared to counterparts of the same age, which were produced from non-cryopreserved embryos. Both series were submitted to morphological, cytological and molecular comparisons. No significant differences in terms of growth rates could be measured. In addition, no morphological variation could be detected through the measurement of shoot elongation rates, production of opened leaves, and the number and total length of primary roots. Karyotype analysis revealed the same chromosome number (2n = 32) in all studied cultivars independently of cryopreservation. No significant differences could be observed between control and cryopreserved material concerning the type of chromosomes, the length of the long and short arms, the arm length ratio and the centromeric index. However, idiogram analysis did show a greater number of black banding on chromosomes isolated from cryopreserved material. Genetic and epigenetic fidelity was assessed through microsatellite (SSR) analysis and global DNA methylation rates; no significant differences would be observed between genomic DNAs isolated from seedlings originating from cryopreserved embryos and respective controls. In conclusion, our results suggest that the method of cryopreservation under study did not induce gross morphological, genetic or epigenetic changes, thus suggesting that it is an appropriate method to efficiently preserve coconut germplasm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20464558What 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.