ArticlePloS one2021
Recalcitrance of Cannabis sativa to de novo regeneration; a multi-genotype replication study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Back to the roots: Cannabis sativa L. root metabolism, microbiomes, and biotechnological potential.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Genetic Advances inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Decoding the cannabis tissue culture puzzle: Machine learning analysis of cannabis in vitro morpho-physiological disorders expands the potential for precision micropropagation.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2025Article
- A novel protocol for protoplast isolation, transfection, and culture in Cannabis sativa L.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Genotype-independent de novo regeneration protocol in Cannabis sativa L. through direct organogenesis from cotyledonary nodes.Plant methods · 2025Article
- Bottom Cooling During Culture Initiation Increases Survival and Reduces Hyperhydricity in Micropropagated Cannabis Plants.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Engineering Agrobacterium for improved plant transformation.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025Review
- Exploring ethylene-related genes in Cannabis sativa: implications for sexual plasticity.Plant reproduction · 2024Article
- Somatic Mutation Accumulations in Micropropagated Cannabis Are Proportional to the Number of Subcultures.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Enhancing Protoplast Isolation and Early Cell Division fromPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Transcriptomic Profiling of Embryogenic and Non-Embryogenic Callus Provides New Insight into the Nature of Recalcitrance in Cannabis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Challenges and potentials of new breeding techniques inFrontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Genetic Evaluation of In Vitro Micropropagated and Regenerated Plants ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- Cryopreservation of 13 CommercialPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Advances and Perspectives in Tissue Culture and Genetic Engineering of Cannabis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- The Past, Present and Future ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Metabolic Engineering Strategies of Industrial Hemp (Frontiers in plant science · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cannabis sativa is relatively recalcitrant to de novo regeneration, but several studies have reported shoot organogenesis or somatic embryogenesis from non-meristematic tissues. Most report infrequent regeneration rates from these tissues, but a landmark publication from 2010 achieved regeneration from leaf explants with a 96% response rate, producing an average of 12.3 shoots per explant in a single drug-type accession. Despite the importance regeneration plays in plant biotechnology and the renewed interest in this crop the aforementioned protocol has not been used in subsequent papers in the decade since it was published, raising concerns over its reproducibility. Here we attempted to replicate this important Cannabis regeneration study and expand the original scope of the study by testing it across 10 drug-type C. sativa genotypes to assess genotypic variation. In our study, callus was induced in all 10 genotypes but callus growth and appearance substantially differed among cultivars, with the most responsive genotype producing 6-fold more callus than the least responsive. The shoot induction medium failed to induce shoot organogenesis in any of the 10 cultivars tested, instead resulting in necrosis of the calli. The findings of this replication study raise concerns about the replicability of existing methods. However, some details of the protocol could not be replicated due to missing details in the original paper and regulatory issues, which could have impacted the outcome. These results highlight the importance of using multiple genotypes in such studies and providing detailed methods to facilitate replication.
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.