Cited by 91Plant tissue culture and regenerationGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchPlant Genetic and Mutation Studies

Assessment of genetic and epigenetic variation in hop plants regenerated from sequential subcultures of organogenic calli

Open access
Peredo, Elena L., Ángeles Revilla, M., Arroyo-García, Rosa·2006·Journal of Plant Physiology

Abstract

Organogenic calli induced from internodal segments were subcultured three times. Regenerated plants obtained from each subculture were analysed by molecular methods. No major genetic rearrangements were detected in the callus-derived plants since none of the amplified fragment-length polymorphism (AFLP) loci were found to be polymorphic. However, epigenetic changes due to a demethylation process were detected by methylation-sensitive amplified polymorphism (MSAP) technique. The results allowed inference of the possible relationship among the plants derived from different calli subcultures and the in vitro control. The plants recovered from the first and second callus subcultures clustered with the in vitro control pools in the phenogram while the regenerants from the third callus subculture showed the highest genetic distance with the controls. This is the first study reporting data about the genetic stability of callus-derived Humulus lupulus L. plants.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jplph.2005.09.010

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Humulus lupulus direct organogenesis, no variation was observed.

    “No variation observed”

    From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [157]

    The indexed Abstract (page unnumbered) reports no polymorphic AFLP loci or major genetic rearrangements in hop plants regenerated from organogenic calli. It does not describe direct organogenesis, and it reports epigenetic changes, so the unqualified claim that no variation was observed is too broad. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In hop, plants recovered from the first and second callus subcultures had very similar methylation profiles to the in vitro control pools, while regenerants from the third callus subculture showed the highest genetic distance from controls.

    “Peredo et al. (2006) [121] identified, using the MSAP technique, that the plants recovered from the first and second callus subcultures had very similar methylation profiles to the in vitro control pools, while the regenerants from the third callus subculture showed the highest genetic distance from the controls.”

    From Somaclonal Variation—Advantage or Disadvantage in Micropropagation of the Medicinal Plants (2023) · cites this paper as Peredo et al. (2006) [121]

    The available indexed passages contain repository metadata and an abstract, but no section or page of the paper’s full text. Searches for the MSAP phenogram, methylation profiles, and third-subculture distance returned only that same abstract; under the supplied evidence rule, it cannot establish the verdict. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peredo, E. L., Ángeles Revilla, M., & Arroyo-García, R.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Oviedo (ES)
  • Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (ES)
Corresponding author
Peredo, Elena L.
Venue
Journal of Plant Physiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
163
Issue
10
Pages
1071-1079
ISSN
0176-1617 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2093352054
Cited by
91
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Plant Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Genetic and Mutation Studies
Keywords
Humulus lupulus, organogenic callus, callus subculture, genetic stability, epigenetic variation, DNA methylation, demethylation, AFLP polymorphism, MSA-P, plant regeneration
MeSH terms
Polymorphism, Genetic, DNA Methylation, Humulus, Epigenesis, Genetic, Tissue Culture Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review