4.7 Article

Whole-genome sequencing and analysis of the Chinese herbal plant Gelsemium elegans

期刊

ACTA PHARMACEUTICA SINICA B
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 374-382

出版社

INST MATERIA MEDICA, CHINESE ACAD MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2019.08.004

关键词

Gelsemium elegans; Nanopore sequencing; Genome assembly; Hi-C; Genome annotation; Monoterpene indole alkaloid

资金

  1. Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [2018JJ2172]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFD0501403]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31400275]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gelsemium elegans (G. elegans) (2n = 2x = 16) is genus of flowering plants belonging to the Gelsemicaeae family. Here, a high-quality genome assembly using the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) platform and high-throughput chromosome conformation capture techniques (Hi-C) were used. A total of 56.11 Gb of raw GridION X5 platform ONT reads (6.23 Gb per cell) were generated. After filtering, 53.45 Gb of clean reads were obtained, giving 160 x coverage depth. The de novo genome assemblies 335.13 Mb, close to the 338 Mb estimated by k-mer analysis, was generated with contig N50 of 10.23 Mb. The vast majority (99.2%) of the G. elegans assembled sequence was anchored onto 8 pseudo-chromosomes. The genome completeness was then evaluated and 1338 of the 1440 conserved genes (92.9%) could be found in the assembly. Genome annotation revealed that 43.16% of the G. elegans genome is composed of repetitive elements and 23.9% is composed of long terminal repeat elements. We predicted 26,768 protein-coding genes, of which 84.56% were functionally annotated. The genomic sequences of G. elegans could be a valuable source for comparative genomic analysis in the Gelsemicaeae family and will be useful for understanding the phylogenetic relationships of the indole alkaloid metabolism. (C) 2020 Chinese Pharmaceutical Association and Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据