Cited by 23Plant tissue culture and regenerationGenetic diversity and population structureGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

Assessment of genetic fidelity of somatic embryogenesis regenerated guava ( Psidium guajava L.) plants using DNA‐based markers

Open access
Kamle, M, Kumar, P, Bajpai, A, Kalim, S, Chandra, R·2014·New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science

Abstract

An efficient somatic embryogenesis protocol for plantlet regeneration of the commercially valuable, and nutritionally important, crop guava ( Psidium guajava L.) has been established. The immature zygotic embryos were targeted as an explant source for inducing somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration, using four commercial cultivars (Allahabad Safeda, Lalit, Sardar and Shweta). The plantlets regenerated were assessed for genetic fidelity using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), inter simple sequence repeats (ISSR) and simple sequence repeat (SSR) molecular markers. A total of 2171 scorable bands were obtained using RAPD, ISSR or SSR, ranging from 300–3500, 250–3000 and 150–280 bp, respectively. No polymorphism was observed among the somatic embryogenesis regenerated plants, compared with respective donor mother plants. The profiles generated based on the three marker systems were found to be highly uniform and approximately 99% bands were monomorphic. This high degree of genetic uniformity (as assessed using the markers) in the somatic embryogenesis regenerated plants indicates genomic stability was maintained through the regeneration protocol. The somatic embryogenesis regenerated plants were hardened and transferred to the field for acclimatization, of which 80% plantlets survived, with all being phenotypically similar to the donor mother plants. We conclude that the RAPD, ISSR and SSR markers were informative and potentially useful in confirming the uniformity assessment of somatic embryogenesis regenerated 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 · 10.1080/01140671.2013.814574

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • RAPD can sometimes yield inconsistent results and may not be as reproducible as other methods such as AFLP and SSR.

    “Despite its simplicity and low cost, RAPD can sometimes yield inconsistent results and may not be as reproducible as other methods, such as AFLP and SSR [121,122].”

    From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [122]

    The Introduction (page not available) describes RAPD as simple and cost-effective and says SSR markers can be more reliable. It does not compare RAPD with AFLP or explicitly say RAPD yields inconsistent results. The Statistical analysis section says the authors retained only consistently reproducible bands, but does not establish how often RAPD results are inconsistent. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Psidium guajava, approximately 99% of bands were monomorphic.

    “Approximately 99% of bands were monomorphic.”

    From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [122]

    The Molecular analysis section reports that all 1,323 RAPD bands were monomorphic across somatic-embryogenesis-regenerated guava plants compared with their mother plants. It does not report a 99% figure for the bands overall, so the claim’s percentage and scope are not fully supported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Chandra R, Kamle M, Bajpai A 2010a. Guava. In: Singh HP, Parthasarathy VA, Nirmal Babu K eds. Advances in horticultural biotechnology: regeneration systems, Vol. 1 Fruit crops, plan- tation crops and spices. New Delhi, Westville Publishing House. Pp. 103Á120.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kamle, M., Kumar, P., Bajpai, A., Kalim, S., & Chandra, R.
Affiliations
  • Central Institute For Subtropical Horticulture (IN)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Bundelkhand University (IN)
Corresponding author
Kamle, M
Venue
New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08-21
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 0114-0671 (ISSN-L)
  • 1175-8783
OpenAlex
W1988652350
Cited by
23
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
guava, somatic embryogenesis, genetic fidelity, plant regeneration, genome stability, RAPD markers, ISSR markers, microsatellite markers, acclimatization

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