Back

Cellular debris, not mucilage polysaccharides, dominate extracts of Plantago ovata and Plantago lanceolata calli grown in vitro

Cowley, J. M.; Betts, N. S.; Burton, R. A.

2020-06-16 plant biology
10.1101/2020.06.15.153395 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Mucilage is a hydrophilic mixture of polysaccharides produced by seeds of many species, and used in research, industrial processes and as human health supplements. As such, demand often outweighs supply. In recent years, several researchers have reported that mucilage can be produced efficiently from in vitro-cultured calli as a direct plant-less alternative to seed mucilage; however, this mucilage has not been rigorously characterised. Here we replicate previously published culturing and extraction procedures and couple them with compositional analysis to determine whether the mucilage produced from Plantago ovata and P. lanceolata calli are similar to seed mucilage. Our monosaccharide profiling and microscopy show that, while calli derived from either seedling hypocotyls or roots yield more material than seeds using the same extraction techniques, the majority of extract mass is cellular debris. Debris polysaccharide composition was significantly different to seed mucilage from both species. Plant tissue culture as an alternative source of high yields of useful mucilage polysaccharides, at least by these and similar methods, is likely to not be possible.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
19.4%
Similar papers in this journal
2
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 11%
15.8%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Plant Direct
○ 95 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.1%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Frontiers in Plant Science
○ 256 papers in training set
Top 1%
7.6%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Visualized Experiments
● 34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Agronomy
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
7
Plants
○ 43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.3%
8
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
● 15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
9
BMC Plant Biology
○ 57 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.2%
10
RSC Advances
● 22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
Biotechnology for Biofuels
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
12
Plant Methods
○ 42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
13
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
○ 494 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.2%
14
Plant Stress
○ 12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
15
New Phytologist
○ 346 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
16
Planta
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
17
New Biotechnology
○ 12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
18
BMC Research Notes
○ 33 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
19
Plant Physiology
◐ 238 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
20
Food Chemistry
○ 13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
21
ACS Synthetic Biology
● 287 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
22
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 33%
0.6%
23
Journal of Integrative Plant Biology
○ 13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
24
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications
○ 84 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
25
Plant Cell Reports
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
26
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
27
STAR Protocols
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%
28
Food Research International
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%
29
Physiologia Plantarum
○ 39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
30
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.5%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.