Recent Advances in Plant in Vitro Culture 2012
DOI: 10.5772/51843
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Science of Plant Tissue Culture as a Catalyst for Agricultural and Industrial Development in an Emerging Economy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
(30 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…NaDCC was effective against Pseudomonas, Xanthomonas, and Actinomycetes. Samples were analysed for the ef icacy of NaDCC with explants that were heavily contaminated with (Coates, 1996) Enterococcus faecalis (Heling et al, 2001) Lactobacillus sp (Guiteras and Schmelkes, 1934) Staphylococcus sp (Bloom ield and Uso, 1985;Proto et al, 2016) Streptococcus mutans (Heling et al, 2001) Streptococcus salivarius (Heling et al, 2001) Streptococcus sobrinus (Heling et al, 2001) Gram-negative Acinetobacter sp (Abreu et al, 2013) Campylobacter jejuni (Clasen and Edmondson, 2006) Enterobacteria sp (Abreu et al, 2013) Escherichia coli (Clasen and Edmondson, 2006;Proto et al, 2016) Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Lantagne et al, 2010) Pseudomonas sp (D' Auria et al, 1989) Salmonella dysenteriae (Clasen and Edmondson, 2006). Vibrio cholerae (Lantagne et al, 2010) Yersinia enterocolitica (Clasen and Edmondson, 2006) Fungus Aspergillus sp (Proto et al, 2016;Staniszewska, 2004).…”
Section: Potential Advantages Of Nadcc In Plant Tissue Culturementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…NaDCC was effective against Pseudomonas, Xanthomonas, and Actinomycetes. Samples were analysed for the ef icacy of NaDCC with explants that were heavily contaminated with (Coates, 1996) Enterococcus faecalis (Heling et al, 2001) Lactobacillus sp (Guiteras and Schmelkes, 1934) Staphylococcus sp (Bloom ield and Uso, 1985;Proto et al, 2016) Streptococcus mutans (Heling et al, 2001) Streptococcus salivarius (Heling et al, 2001) Streptococcus sobrinus (Heling et al, 2001) Gram-negative Acinetobacter sp (Abreu et al, 2013) Campylobacter jejuni (Clasen and Edmondson, 2006) Enterobacteria sp (Abreu et al, 2013) Escherichia coli (Clasen and Edmondson, 2006;Proto et al, 2016) Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Lantagne et al, 2010) Pseudomonas sp (D' Auria et al, 1989) Salmonella dysenteriae (Clasen and Edmondson, 2006). Vibrio cholerae (Lantagne et al, 2010) Yersinia enterocolitica (Clasen and Edmondson, 2006) Fungus Aspergillus sp (Proto et al, 2016;Staniszewska, 2004).…”
Section: Potential Advantages Of Nadcc In Plant Tissue Culturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, substantial electricity cost is one of the critical factors that negate the popularisation of plant tissue culture-based enterprise (Pożoga et al, 2019). Plant tissue culture has the potential to be a catalyst for the development in both the agricultural and industrial sectors in the emerging economy (Aladele et al, 2012). Therefore a viable chemical method of sterilisation is the demand of the time for successful implementation and economic feasibility.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%