CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Plant tissue culture and regenerationNatural product bioactivities and synthesisPhytochemical Studies and Bioactivities

Comparative Study of the Genetic and Biochemical Variability of Polyscias filicifolia (Araliaceae) Regenerants Obtained by Indirect and Direct Somatic Embryogenesis as a Source of Triterpenes

Open access
Śliwińska, Anita A., Białek, Agnieszka, Orłowska, Renata, Mańkowski, Dariusz, Sykłowska-Baranek, Katarzyna, Pietrosiuk, Agnieszka·2021·International Journal of Molecular Sciences
DOI 10.3390/ijms22115752PMC PMC8198449
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Polyscias filicifolia (Araliaceae) is broadly used in traditional medicine in Southeast Asia due to its antimicrobial, immunomodulating and cytotoxic activities. The main groups of compounds responsible for pharmacological effects are believed to be oleanolic triterpene saponins. However, Polyscias plants demonstrate relatively slow growth in natural conditions, which led to applying a developing sustainable source of plant material via primary (PSE), secondary (DSE) and direct somatic embryogenesis from DSE (TSE). The AFLP and metAFLP genotyping resulted in 1277 markers, amplified by a total of 24 pairs of selective primers. Only 3.13% of the markers were polymorphic. The analysis of variance showed that the PSE and TSE regenerants differed only in terms of root number, while the DSE plantlets differed for all studied morphological characteristics. Further, the chemical analysis revealed that oleanolic acid (439.72 µg/g DW), ursolic acid (111.85 µg/g DW) and hederagenin (19.07 µg/g DW) were determined in TSE regenerants. Our results indicate that direct somatic embryogenesis ensures the production of homogeneous plant material, which can serve as a potential source of triterpene compounds. Plants obtained via somatic embryogenesis could also be reintroduced into the natural environment to protect and preserve its biodiversity.

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 · 10.3390/ijms22115752

Cites

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?

  • AFLP technique is often used in combination with methylation-sensitive restriction enzymes to assess epigenetic somaclonal variation associated with modification of whole genome methylation.

    “More often, the AFLP technique is used in combination with methylation-sensitive restriction enzymes in order to assess the epigenetic somaclonal variation associated with the modification of the whole genome methylation [79,80].”

    From Somaclonal Variation—Advantage or Disadvantage in Micropropagation of the Medicinal Plants (2023) · cites this paper as [80]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes metAFLP as an AFLP-based method that uses enzymes with different methylation sensitivities to detect genetic and epigenetic changes. The Methods and Discussion (pages unavailable) confirm its use to assess methylation variation in regenerants. The paper does not establish that this combination is used ‘more often’ than alternatives or that it measures whole-genome methylation rather than methylation at sampled restriction sites. (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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 81 · Cited by 14

Research works printed but not linked: 73

  1. [1]Ashmawy N.S. Gad H.A. Ashour M.L. El-Ahmady S.H. Singab A.N.B. The genus Polyscias (Araliaceae): A phytochemical and biological review J. Herb. Med. 2020 23 100377 10.1016/j.hermed.2020.100377 · DOI
  2. [2]Plunkett G.M. Wen J. Ii P.P.L. Infrafamilial classifications and characters in Araliaceae: Insights from the phylogenetic analysis of nuclear (ITS) and plastid (trn L -trn F) sequence data Plant Syst. Evol. 2004 245 1 39 10.1007/s00606-003-0101-3 · DOI
  3. [3]Śliwińska A. Olszowska O. Furmanowa M. Nosov A. Rapid multiplication of Polyscias filicifolia by secondary somatic embryogenesis Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2008 44 69 77 10.1007/s11627-008-9132-3 · DOI
  4. [4]Huan V.D. Yamamura S. Ohtani K. Kasai R. Yamasaki K. Nham N.T. Chau H.M. Oleane saponins from Polyscias fruticosa Phytochemistry 1998 47 451 457 10.1016/S0031-9422(97)00618-3 9433819 · DOI
  5. [5]Do V.M. Tran C.L. Nguyen T.P. Polysciosides J and K, two new oleanane-type triterpenoid saponins from the leaves of Polyscias fruticosa (L.) harms. cultivating in An Giang Province, Viet Nam Nat. Prod. Res. 2020 34 1250 1255 10.1080/14786419.2018.1557657 30663359 · DOI
  6. [6]Tram N.T.T. Tuyet H.D. Minh Q.N. One unusual sterol from Polyscias fruticosa (L.) Harms (Araliaceae) Can Tho Univ. J. Sci. 2017 7 33 36 10.22144/ctu.jen.2017.046 · DOI
  7. [7]Boye A. Osei-Owusu A.K. Koffuor G.A. Barku V.Y.A. Asiamah E.A. Asante E. Assessment of Polyscias fruticosa (L.) Harm (Araliaceae) leaf extract on male fertility in rats J. Intercult. Ethnopharmacol. 2018 7 1 12 10.5455/jice.20170701035248 · DOI
  8. [8]Nosov A.M. Popova E.V. Kochkin D.V. Isoprenoid production via plant cell cultures: Biosynthesis, accumulation and scaling-up to bioreactors Production of Biomass and Bioactive Compounds Using Bioreactor Technology Paek K.Y. Murthy H. Zhong J.J. Springer Dordrecht, Germany 2014 563 623
  9. [9]Śliwińska A.A. Sykłowska-Baranek K. Kośmider A. Granica S. Miszczak K. Nowicka G. Kasztelan A. Podsadni P. Turło J. Pietrosiuk A. Stimulation of phenolic compounds production in the in vitro cultivated Polyscias filicifolia Bailey shoots and evaluation of the antioxidant and cytotoxic potential of plant extracts Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 2018 87 1 16 10.5586/asbp.3586 · DOI
  10. [10]Figat R. Śliwińska A. Stochmal A. Soluch A. Sobczak M. Zgadzaj A. Sykłowska-Baranek K. Pietrosiuk A. Antigenotoxic, anti-photogenotoxic, and antioxidant properties of Polyscias filicifolia shoots cultivated in vitro Molecules 2020 25 1090 10.3390/molecules25051090 PMC7179227 32121158 · DOI
  11. [12]Kim J.Y. Adhikari P.B. Ahn C.H. Kim D.H. Kim C.Y. Han J.Y. Kondeti S. Choi Y.E. High frequency somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration of interspecific ginseng hybrid between Panax ginseng and Panax quinquefolius J. Ginseng Res. 2019 43 38 48 10.1016/j.jgr.2017.08.002 30662292 PMC6323240 · DOI
  12. [14]Wang Q.W.L. Wang L. An evolutionary view of plant tissue culture: Somaclonal variation and selection Plant Cell Rep. 2012 31 1535 1547 10.1007/s00299-012-1281-5 22610486 · DOI
  13. [15]Neelakandan A.K. Wang K. Recent progress in the understanding of tissue culture-induced genome level changes in plants and potential applications Plant Cell Rep. 2012 31 597 620 10.1007/s00299-011-1202-z 22179259 · DOI
  14. [16]Kumar V. Van Staden J. New insights into plant somatic embryogenesis: An epigenetic view Acta Physiol. Plant. 2017 39 194 10.1007/s11738-017-2487-5 · DOI
  15. [17]Kaeppler S.M. Kaeppler H.F. Rhee Y. Epigenetic aspects of somaclonal variation in plants Plant Mol. Biol. 2000 43 179 188 10.1023/A:1006423110134 10999403 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [18]Bednarek P.T. Orłowska R. Plant tissue culture environment as a switch-key of (epi)genetic changes Plant Cell. Tissue Organ Cult. 2020 140 245 257 10.1007/s11240-019-01724-1 · DOI
  17. [19]Miguel C. Marum L. An epigenetic view of plant cells cultured in vitro: Somaclonal variation and beyond J. Exp. Bot. 2011 62 3713 3725 10.1093/jxb/err155 21617249 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [20]Ranghoo-Sanmukhiya V. Somaclonal variation and methods used for its detection Propagation and Genetic Manipulation of Plants Siddique I. Springer Singapore Pte Ltd. Singapore 2021 1 18
  19. [21]Saker M.M. Adawy S.S. Mohamed A.A. El-Itriby H.A. Monitoring of cultivar identity in tissue culture-derived date palms using RAPD and AFLP analysis Biol. Plant. 2006 50 198 204 10.1007/s10535-006-0007-3 · DOI
  20. [22]De La Puente R. González A.I. Ruiz M.L. Polanco C. Somaclonal variation in rye (Secale cereale L.) analyzed using polymorphic and sequenced AFLP markers In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2008 44 419 426 10.1007/s11627-008-9152-z · DOI
  21. [23]Chuang S.J. Chen C.L. Chen J.J. Chou W.Y. Sung J.M. Jean S. Li C. Jih J. Yu W. Min J. Detection of somaclonal variation in micro-propagated Echinacea purpurea using AFLP marker Sci. Hortic. 2009 120 121 126 10.1016/j.scienta.2008.09.020 · DOI
  22. [24]Prado M.J. Rodriguez E. Rey L. González M.V. Santos C. Rey M. Detection of somaclonal variants in somatic embryogenesis-regenerated plants of Vitis vinifera by flow cytometry and microsatellite markers Plant Cell. Tissue Organ Cult. 2010 103 49 59 10.1007/s11240-010-9753-1 · DOI
  23. [25]Mehta R. Sharma V. Sood A. Sharma M. Sharma R.K. Induction of somatic embryogenesis and analysis of genetic fidelity of in vitro-derived plantlets of Bambusa nutans Wall., using AFLP markers Eur. J. For. Res. 2011 130 729 736 10.1007/s10342-010-0462-4 · DOI
  24. [26]Bednarek P.T. Orłowska R. Koebner R.M.D. Zimny J. Quantification of the tissue-culture induced variation in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) BMC Plant Biol. 2007 7 1 9 10.1186/1471-2229-7-10 17335560 PMC1819380 · DOI
  25. [27]Fiuk A. Bednarek P.T. Rybczyński J.J. Flow cytometry, HPLC-RP, and metAFLP analyses to assess genetic variability in somatic embryo-derived plantlets of Gentiana pannonica Scop Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 2010 28 413 420 10.1007/s11105-009-0167-3 · DOI · Paper page
  26. [28]Mikuła A. Tomiczak K. Rybczyński J.J. Cryopreservation enhances embryogenic capacity of Gentiana cruciata (L.) suspension culture and maintains (epi)genetic uniformity of regenerants Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2011 30 565 574 10.1007/s00299-010-0970-1 PMC3056987 21161232 · DOI
  27. [30]Machczyńska J. Orłowska R. Zimny J. Bednarek P.T. Extended metAFLP approach in studies of tissue culture induced variation (TCIV) in triticale Mol. Breed. 2014 34 845 854 10.1007/s11032-014-0079-2 25242884 PMC4162973 · DOI
  28. [31]Coronel C.J. González A.I. Ruiz M.L. Polanco C. Analysis of somaclonal variation in transgenic and regenerated plants of Arabidopsis thaliana using methylation related metAFLP and TMD markers Plant Cell Rep. 2018 37 137 152 10.1007/s00299-017-2217-x 29038910 · DOI
  29. [32]Rimberia F.K. Adaniya S. Ishimine Y. Etoh T. Morphology of papaya plants derived via anther culture Sci. Hortic. 2007 111 213 219 10.1016/j.scienta.2006.10.015 · DOI
  30. [33]Kong E.Y. Biddle J. Foale M. Adkins S.W. Cell suspension culture: A potential in vitro culture method for clonal propagation of coconut plantlets via somatic embryogenesis Ind. Crops Prod. 2020 147 112125 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112125 · DOI
  31. [34]Rodríguez López C.M. Wetten A.C. Wilkinson M.J. Progressive erosion of genetic and epigenetic variation in callus-derived cocoa (Theobroma cacao) plants New Phytol. 2010 186 856 868 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03242.x 20406408 · DOI
  32. [35]Mulanda E.S. Chuhila Y. Awori R.M. Adero M.O. Amugune N.O. Akunda E. Kinyamario J.I. Morphological and RAPD-marker characterization of Melia volkensii (Gürke) in vitro plants regenerated via direct and indirect somatic embryogenesis Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2015 14 1261 1274 10.5897/AJB2014.14372 · DOI
  33. [36]Sanchez-Teyer L.F. Quiroz-Figueroa F. Loyola-Vargas V. Infante D. Culture-induced variation in plants of Coffea arabica cv. Caturra Rojo, regenerated by direct and indirect somatic embryogenesis Mol. Biotechnol. 2003 23 107 115 10.1385/MB:23:2:107 12632695 · DOI
  34. [37]Homhuan S. Kijwijan B. Wangsomnuk P. Bodhipadma K. Leung D.W.M. Variation of plants derived from indirect somatic embryogenesis in cotyledon explants of papaya Sci. Asia 2008 34 347 352 10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2008.34.347 · DOI
  35. [38]Sharma S.K. Bryan G.J. Winfield M.O. Millam S. Stability of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) plants regenerated via somatic embryos, axillary bud proliferated shoots, microtubers and true potato seeds: A comparative phenotypic, cytogenetic and molecular assessment Planta 2007 226 1449 1458 10.1007/s00425-007-0583-2 17668235 · DOI
  36. [40]Bobadilla Landey R. Cenci A. Guyot R. Bertrand B. Georget F. Dechamp E. Herrera J.-C. Aribi J. Lashermes P. Etienne H. Assessment of genetic and epigenetic changes during cell culture ageing and relations with somaclonal variation in Coffea arabica Plant Cell. Tissue Organ Cult. 2015 122 517 531 10.1007/s11240-015-0772-9 · DOI
  37. [41]Gao X. Yang D. Cao D. Ao M. Sui X. Wang Q. Kimatu J.N. Wang L. In vitro micropropagation of Freesia hybrida and the assessment of genetic and epigenetic stability in regenerated plantlets J. Plant Growth Regul. 2010 29 257 267 10.1007/s00344-009-9133-4 · DOI
  38. [42]He X. Chen T. Zhu J. Regulation and function of DNA methylation in plants and animals Nat. Publ. Gr. 2011 21 442 465 10.1038/cr.2011.23 PMC3152208 21321601 · DOI
  39. [43]Us-Camas R. Rivera-Solís G. Duarte-Aké F. De-la-Peña C. In vitro culture: An epigenetic challenge for plants Plant Cell. Tissue Organ Cult. 2014 118 187 201 10.1007/s11240-014-0482-8 · DOI
  40. [44]Fraga H.P.F. Vieira L.N. Caprestano C.A. Steinmacher D.A. Micke G.A. Spudeit D.A. Pescador R. Guerra M.P. 5-azacytidine combined with 2,4-D improves somatic embryogenesis of Acca sellowiana (O. Berg) Burret by means of changes in global DNA methylation levels Plant Cell Rep. 2012 31 2165 2176 10.1007/s00299-012-1327-8 22865112 · DOI · Paper page
  41. [45]Fehér A. Somatic embryogenesis—Stress-induced remodeling of plant cell fate Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2015 1849 385 402 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2014.07.005 25038583 · DOI
  42. [46]Garcia C. Furtado de Almeida A.A. Costa M. Britto D. Valle R. Royaert S. Marelli J.P. Abnormalities in somatic embryogenesis caused by 2,4-D: An overview Plant Cell. Tissue Organ Cult. 2019 137 193 212 10.1007/s11240-019-01569-8 · DOI
  43. [47]Gaj M.D. Factors influencing somatic embryogenesis induction and plant regeneration with particular reference to Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh Plant Growth Regul. 2004 43 27 47 10.1023/B:GROW.0000038275.29262.fb · DOI
  44. [48]Konieczny R. Śliwinska E. Pilarska M. Tuleja M. Morphohistological and flow cytometric analyses of somatic embryogenesis in Trifolium nigrescens Viv Plant Cell. Tissue Organ Cult. 2012 109 131 141 10.1007/s11240-011-0081-x · DOI
  45. [49]Xu L. Huang H. Genetic and epigenetic controls of plant regeneration Current Topics in Developmental Biology 1st ed. Galliot B. Academic Press Cambridge, MA, USA 2014 Volume 108 1 33 24512704
  46. [50]Orłowska R. Zimny J. Bednarek P.T. Copper ions induce DNA sequence variation in zygotic embryo culture-derived barley regenerants Front. Plant Sci. 2021 11 1 12 10.3389/fpls.2020.614837 33613587 PMC7889974 · DOI
  47. [51]Viehmannova I. Bortlovaj Z. Vitamvas J. Cepkovaj P.H. Eliasova K. Svobodovaj E. Travnickova M. Assessment of somaclonal variation in somatic embryo-derived plants of yacon [Smallanthus sonchifolius (poepp. and endl.) h. robinson] using inter simple sequence repeat analysis and flow cytometry Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2014 17 102 106 10.1016/j.ejbt.2013.12.011 · DOI
  48. [52]Lopes T. Capelo A. Brito G. Genetic variability analyses of the somatic embryogenesis induction process in Olea spp. using nuclear microsatellites Trees 2009 23 29 36 10.1007/s00468-008-0251-6 · DOI
  49. [53]Ali M. Mujib A. Tonk D. Zafar N. Plant regeneration through somatic embryogenesis and genome size analysis of Coriandrum sativum L. Protoplasma 2017 254 343 352 10.1007/s00709-016-0954-2 26910351 · DOI
  50. [54]Loureiro J. Pinto G. Lopes T. Doležel J. Santos C. Assessment of ploidy stability of the somatic embryogenesis process in Quercus suber L. using flow cytometry Planta 2005 221 815 822 10.1007/s00425-005-1492-x 15744492 · DOI
  51. [55]Cichorz S. Gośka M. Mańkowski D.R. Miscanthus × giganteus: Regeneration system with assessment of genetic and epigenetic stability in long-term in vitro culture Ind. Crops Prod. 2018 116 150 161 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.02.055 · DOI
  52. [56]Rival A. Ilbert P. Labeyrie A. Torres E. Doulbeau S. Personne A. Dussert S. Beulé T. Durand-Gasselin T. Tregear J.W. Variations in genomic DNA methylation during the long-term in vitro proliferation of oil palm embryogenic suspension cultures Plant Cell Rep. 2013 32 359 368 10.1007/s00299-012-1369-y 23179461 · DOI
  53. [57]Peredo E.L. Arroyo-Garcıa R. Revilla A.M. Epigenetic changes detected in micropropagated hop plants J. Plant Physiol. 2009 166 1101 1111 10.1016/j.jplph.2008.12.015 19285752 · DOI · Paper page
  54. [58]Pila Quinga L.A. Pacheco de Freitas Fraga H. do Nascimento Vieira L. Guerra M.P. Epigenetics of long-term somatic embryogenesis in Theobroma cacao L.: DNA methylation and recovery of embryogenic potential Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2017 131 295 305 10.1007/s11240-017-1284-6 · DOI
  55. [59]Rai M.K. Phulwaria M. Harish Gupta A.K. Shekhawat N.S. Jaiswal U. Genetic homogeneity of guava plants derived from somatic embryogenesis using SSR and ISSR markers Plant Cell Tiss. Org. Cult. 2012 111 259 264 10.1007/s11240-012-0190-1 · DOI
  56. [61]Carra A. Sajeva M. Abbate L. Siragusa M. Pathirana R. Carimi F. Factors affecting somatic embryogenesis in eight Italian grapevine cultivars and the genetic stability of embryo-derived regenerants as assessed by molecular markers Sci. Hortic. 2016 204 123 127 10.1016/j.scienta.2016.03.045 · DOI
  57. [63]Śliwińska A. Naliwajski M.R. Pietrosiuk A. Sykłowska-Baranek K. In vitro response of Polyscias filicifolia (Araliaceae) shoots to elicitation with alarmone–diadenosine triphosphate, methyl jasmonate, and salicylic acid Cells 2021 10 419 10.3390/cells10020419 33671225 PMC7922777 · DOI
  58. [64]Janicsák G. Veres K. Kállai M. Máthé I. Gas chromatographic method for routine determination of oleanolic and ursolic acids in medicinal plants Chromatographia 2003 58 295 299 10.1365/s10337-003-0058-y · DOI
  59. [65]Srivastava P. Chaturvedi R. Simultaneous determination and quantification of three pentacyclic triterpenoids—Betulinic acid, oleanolic acid, and ursolic acid—In cell cultures of Lantana camara L. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2010 46 549 557 10.1007/s11627-010-9298-3 · DOI
  60. [66]Tarvainen M. Suomela J.P. Kallio H. Yang B. Plantago L. Triterpene acids in Plantago major: Identification, quantification and comparison of different extraction methods Chromatographia 2010 71 279 284 10.1365/s10337-009-1439-7 · DOI
  61. [67]Wójciak-Kosior M. Sowa I. Kocjan R. Nowak R. Effect of different extraction techniques on quantification of oleanolic and ursolic acid in Lamii albi flos Ind. Crop. Prod. 2013 44 373 377 10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.11.018 · DOI
  62. [68]Janicsák G. Veres K. Kakasy A.Z. Máthé I. Study of the oleanolic and ursolic acid contents of some species of the Lamiaceae Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2006 34 392 396 10.1016/j.bse.2005.12.004 · DOI
  63. [69]Wiktorowska E. Długosz M. Janiszowska W. Significant enhancement of oleanolic acid accumulation by biotic elicitors in cell suspension cultures of Calendula officinalis L. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2010 46 14 20 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2009.09.002 · DOI
  64. [70]Długosz M. Wiktorowska E. Wiśniewska A. Paczkowski C. Production of oleanolic acid glycosides by hairy root established cultures of Calendula officinalis L. Acta Biochim. Pol. 2013 60 467 473 10.18388/abp.2013_2008 24040627 · DOI
  65. [73]Yin Z. Shangguan X. Chen J. Zhao Q. Li D. Growth and triterpenic acid accumulation of Cyclocarya paliurus cell suspension cultures Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2013 18 606 614 10.1007/s12257-012-0751-5 · DOI
  66. [74]Marchev A. Georgiev V. Badjakov I. Kondakova V. Nikolova M. Pavlov A. Triterpenes production by rhizogenic callus of Salvia scabiosifolia Lam. obtained via Agrobacterium rhizogenes mediated genetic transformation Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2011 25 30 33 10.5504/BBEQ.2011.0109 · DOI
  67. [75]Atanasov A.G. Waltenberger B. Pferschy-Wenzig E.-M. Linder T. Wawroch C. Uhrin P. Temml V. Wang L. Schwaiger S. Heiss E.H. Discovery and resupply of pharmacologically active plant-derived natura products: A review Biotechnol. Adv. 2015 33 1582 1614 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.08.001 26281720 PMC4748402 · DOI
  68. [76]Alsoufi A.S.M. Pączkowski C. Szakiel A. Długosz M. Effect of jasmonic acid and chitosan on triterpenoid production in Calendula officinalis hairy root cultures Phytochem. Lett. 2019 31 5 11 10.1016/j.phytol.2019.02.030 · DOI
  69. [77]Murashige T. Skoog F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays with tobacco tissue cultures Physiol. Plant. 1962 15 473 497 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1962.tb08052.x · DOI
  70. [78]Nitsch J. Nitsch C. Haploid plants from pollen grains Science 1969 163 85 87 10.1126/science.163.3862.85 17780179 · DOI
  71. [79]Vos P. Hogers R. Bleeker M. Reijans M. Lee T.V.D. Hornes M. Friters A. Pot J. Paleman J. Kuiper M. AFLP: A new technique for DNA fingerprinting Nucleic Acids Res. 1995 23 4407 4414 10.1093/nar/23.21.4407 7501463 PMC307397 · DOI
  72. [80]Peakall R. Smouse P.E. GenALEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update Bioinformatics 2012 28 2537 2539 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts460 22820204 PMC3463245 · DOI
  73. [81]Razboršek M.I. Vončina D.B. Doleček V. Vončina E. Determination of oleanolic, betulinic and ursolic acid in Lamiaceae and mass spectral Ffagmentation of their trimethylsilylated derivatives Chromatographia 2008 67 433 440 10.1365/s10337-008-0533-6 · DOI

Authors
Śliwińska, A. A., Białek, A., Orłowska, R., Mańkowski, D., Sykłowska-Baranek, K., & Pietrosiuk, A.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Warsaw (PL)
  • Institute of Genetics and Animal Biotechnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PL)
  • Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute - National Research Institute (PL)
Corresponding author
Sykłowska-Baranek, Katarzyna
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-05-27
Volume
22
Issue
11
Pages
5752
ISSN
1422-0067 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ijms22115752
PMC
PMC8198449
OpenAlex
W3164819505
Cited by
14
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Molecular Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Medical University of Warsaw, Poland (Statutory Budget [FW21/N/2019; FW21/N/2020])
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Natural product bioactivities and synthesis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Phytochemical Studies and Bioactivities
Keywords
Araliaceae, somatic embryogenesis, direct somatic embryogenesis, indirect somatic embryogenesis, triterpenoids, oleanolic acid, ursolic acid, hederagenin, triterpenoid saponins, genetic variation, AFLP markers
MeSH terms
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Regeneration, Triterpenes, Genetic Variation, Biomarkers, Araliaceae, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism Analysis, Plant Somatic Embryogenesis Techniques, Plant Development

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