Cited by 47Plant tissue culture and regenerationBerry genetics and cultivation researchHorticultural and Viticultural Research

Bioreactors and Molecular Analysis in Berry Crop Micropropagation—A Review

Open access
Debnath, Samir·2011·Canadian Journal of Plant Science

Abstract

Debnath, S. C. 2011. Bioreactors and molecular analysis in berry crop micropropagation – A review. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 147–157. While berry fruits have long enjoyed huge popularity among consumers, tremendous progress in plant tissue culture, resulting in great advances in micropropagation, has occurred. Of particular significance has been the evolution of the technology permitting multiplication of berry plants in bioreactors containing liquid media. Although automation of micropropagation in bioreactors has been advanced as a possible way of reducing propagation cost, optimal plant production depends upon better understanding of physiological and biochemical responses of plant to the signals of culture microenvironment and an optimization of specific physical and chemical culture conditions to control the morphogenesis of berry plants in liquid culture systems. Clonal fidelity can be a serious problem, and molecular strategies have been developed in order to reduce the variation to manageable levels. Molecular markers have been introduced to tissue culture research and can potentially be used in various facets of pertinent studies with berry crops. The paper focuses on bioreactor systems combined with semi-solid media used for in vitro culture of berry crops, cultivation of micropropagules and employment of molecular markers in micropropagated plants for the assessment of genetic fidelity, uniformity, stability and trueness-to-type among donor plants and tissue culture regenerants. The pertinent literature is reviewed and the relative merits and shortcomings of the various molecular markers applied are presented with an emphasis on the nature of tissue culture-induced variation.

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 · 10.4141/cjps10131

Cites

85 of 85 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?

  • Bioreactor systems have demonstrated potential in reducing the frequency of somaclonal variation by providing uniform and controlled culture environments.

    “Bioreactor systems have also demonstrated potential in reducing the frequency of somaclonal variation by providing uniform and controlled culture environments [16].”

    From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    The BIOREACTORS section (page unavailable) describes control of culture conditions, and the CONCLUSIONS section (page unavailable) identifies cultural environment as a factor in somaclonal variation. Neither passage demonstrates that bioreactors reduce the frequency of somaclonal variation; the reported genetic-fidelity comparison does not show a reduction relative to gelled culture. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The bioreactor system provides a controlled environment that provides consistent growth conditions for plant tissues, thereby minimizing somaclonal variation.

    “The bioreactor system provides a controlled environment that provides consistent growth conditions for plant tissues, thereby minimizing somaclonal variation [16,82].”

    From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    The BIOREACTORS section (page unavailable) describes bioreactors as controlled environments in which temperature, gases, and pH can be monitored. The CONCLUSIONS section (page unavailable) lists cultural environment among factors affecting somaclonal variation, but does not say that bioreactors provide consistent growth conditions that minimize that variation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Bioreactor-derived strawberry plants showed genetic uniformity and had enhanced anthocyanin content and antioxidant activity compared to conventionally propagated plants.

    “Similarly, confirmed genetic uniformity in bioreactor-derived strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) plants and correlated clonal fidelity with enhanced anthocyanin content and antioxidant activity compared to conventionally propagated plants [16].”

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: 6

  1. Adelberg, J. 2006. Agitated, thin-films of liquid media for efficient micropropagtion. Pages 101Á117 in S. Dutta, S. Gupta, and Y. Ibaraki, eds. Engineering for plant tissue culture, frontiers of biotechnology. 6th ed, Springer Verlag, Heidleburg, Germany.
  2. Anderson, W. C. 1975. Propagation of rhododendrons by tissue culture. Part I: development of a culture medium for multiplication of shoots. Comb. Proc. Int. Plant Prop. Soc. 25: 129Á135.
  3. Debnath, S. C. 2006a. Propagation of Vaccinium in vitro: a review. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 6: 47Á71.
  4. Galletta, G. J. and Ballington, J. R. 1996. Blueberries, cranberries and lingonberries. Pages 1Á107 in J. Janick and J. N. Moore, eds. Fruits breeding. Vol. II. Vine and small fruits crops. John Willey and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
  5. Thiem, B. 2003. Rubus chamaemorus L. Á a boreal plant rich in biologically active metabolites: a review. Biol. Lett. 40: 3Á13.
  6. Weising, K., Nybom, H., Wolff, K. and Meyer, W. 1995. DNA Fingerprinting in plants and fungi. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. 322 pp.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Debnath, S.
Affiliations
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
Corresponding author
Debnath, Samir
Venue
Canadian Journal of Plant Science
Published
2011-01
Volume
91
Issue
1
Pages
147-157
ISSN
  • 0008-4220 (ISSN-L)
  • 1918-1833
OpenAlex
W2141144606
Cited by
47
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Plant Science (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Berry genetics and cultivation research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Horticultural and Viticultural Research
Keywords
berry crops, micropropagation, bioreactors, liquid culture, clonal fidelity, genetic fidelity, molecular markers, morphogenesis

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