ArticlePhysiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology2012
In vitro regeneration of Eucalyptus camaldulensis.
Article in Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methylome and Transcriptome Analysis Reveals Differences in Callus Development and Plantlet Regeneration Capacity Between TwoPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Regeneration and Genetic Transformation inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A Comprehensive Review Uncovering the Challenges and Advancements in the In Vitro Propagation ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Use of polylactic acid microvessel to obtain microplantlets of3 Biotech · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An efficient in vitro regeneration protocol enables mass multiplication, genetic modification and germplasm conservation of desired plants. In vitro plant regeneration was achieved from nodal segments of 18-months-old superior genotypes of Eucalyptus camaldulensis trees through direct organogenesis (DO) and direct somatic embryogenesis (DSE) pathways. Initial bud break (BB) stage occurred via DO while shoot multiplication phase followed both DO and DSE pathways. Interestingly, both BB and shoot multiplication stages were achieved on shoot induction and multiplication (SIM) media composed of Murashige and Skoog (MS) basal medium supplemented with 2 mg l(-1) benzyl aminopurine (BAP) and 0.1 mg l(-1) naphthalene acetic acid (NAA). Best shoot elongation response was observed on half strength MS fortified with 0.5 mg l(-1) BAP, while root induction and elongation was superior in 1/2 MS + 1 mg l(-1) Indole butyric acid (IBA). Full strength MS fortified with cytokinins (BAP) and weak auxin (NAA) in the ratio of 20:1 favored direct regeneration pathways. Further, half strength MS supported shoot and root development. The absence of intervening callus phase in this protocol can help in minimizing the chance occurrence of somaclones. When compared to other compositions tried, hardening in 100 % coco peat resulted in maximum survival (80 %) of the in vitro raised plantlets. For mass multiplication, fortnight subculturing of a single nodal explants for eight passages on SIM medium resulted in 60-148 shoot initials. Repeated subculturing in SIM medium induced the formation of direct somatic embryos which in turn improved the turnover capacity and enabled large scale clonal multiplication of elite and desirable trees of E. camaldulensis. Following this protocol, it takes a minimum time period of four-months between in vitro explant inoculation to hardening stage. In the present study, DO and DSE pathway of plant regeneration was reported occurring simultaneously in the same nodal explants of E. camaldulensis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.