'Nebbiolo' genome assembly allows surveying the occurrence and functional implications of genomic structural variations in grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.).
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Feb 2022
24 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
08
09
2021
accepted:
15
02
2022
entrez:
25
2
2022
pubmed:
26
2
2022
medline:
1
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
'Nebbiolo' is a grapevine cultivar typical of north-western Italy, appreciated for producing high-quality red wines. Grapevine cultivars are characterized by possessing highly heterozygous genomes, including a great incidence of genomic rearrangements larger than 50 bp, so called structural variations (SVs). Even though abundant, SVs are an under-explored source of genetic variation mainly due to methodological limitations at their detection. We employed a multiple platform approach to produce long-range genomic data for two different 'Nebbiolo' clones, namely: optical mapping, long-reads and linked-reads. We performed a haplotype-resolved de novo assembly for cultivar 'Nebbiolo' (clone CVT 71) and used an ab-initio strategy to annotate it. The annotated assembly enhanced our ability to detect SVs, enabling the study of genomic regions not present in the grapevines' reference genome and accounting for their functional implications. We performed variant calling analyses at three different organizational levels: i) between haplotypes of clone CVT 71 (primary assembly vs haplotigs), ii) between 'Nebbiolo' and 'Cabernet Sauvignon' assemblies and iii) between clones CVT 71 and CVT 185, representing different 'Nebbiolo' biotypes. The cumulative size of non-redundant merged SVs indicated a total of 79.6 Mbp for the first comparison and 136.1 Mbp for the second one, while no SVs were detected for the third comparison. Interestingly, SVs differentiating cultivars and haplotypes affected similar numbers of coding genes. Our results suggest that SVs accumulation rate and their functional implications in 'Nebbiolo' genome are highly-dependent on the organizational level under study. SVs are abundant when comparing 'Nebbiolo' to a different cultivar or the two haplotypes of the same individual, while they turned absent between the two analysed clones.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
'Nebbiolo' is a grapevine cultivar typical of north-western Italy, appreciated for producing high-quality red wines. Grapevine cultivars are characterized by possessing highly heterozygous genomes, including a great incidence of genomic rearrangements larger than 50 bp, so called structural variations (SVs). Even though abundant, SVs are an under-explored source of genetic variation mainly due to methodological limitations at their detection.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We employed a multiple platform approach to produce long-range genomic data for two different 'Nebbiolo' clones, namely: optical mapping, long-reads and linked-reads. We performed a haplotype-resolved de novo assembly for cultivar 'Nebbiolo' (clone CVT 71) and used an ab-initio strategy to annotate it. The annotated assembly enhanced our ability to detect SVs, enabling the study of genomic regions not present in the grapevines' reference genome and accounting for their functional implications. We performed variant calling analyses at three different organizational levels: i) between haplotypes of clone CVT 71 (primary assembly vs haplotigs), ii) between 'Nebbiolo' and 'Cabernet Sauvignon' assemblies and iii) between clones CVT 71 and CVT 185, representing different 'Nebbiolo' biotypes. The cumulative size of non-redundant merged SVs indicated a total of 79.6 Mbp for the first comparison and 136.1 Mbp for the second one, while no SVs were detected for the third comparison. Interestingly, SVs differentiating cultivars and haplotypes affected similar numbers of coding genes.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that SVs accumulation rate and their functional implications in 'Nebbiolo' genome are highly-dependent on the organizational level under study. SVs are abundant when comparing 'Nebbiolo' to a different cultivar or the two haplotypes of the same individual, while they turned absent between the two analysed clones.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35209840
doi: 10.1186/s12864-022-08389-9
pii: 10.1186/s12864-022-08389-9
pmc: PMC8867635
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
159Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
G3 (Bethesda). 2019 May 7;9(5):1331-1337
pubmed: 30923135
Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Aug;37(8):907-915
pubmed: 31375807
Plant Cell. 2013 Dec;25(12):4777-88
pubmed: 24319081
Front Genet. 2020 Dec 02;11:592588
pubmed: 33343633
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Dec 04;10:1575
pubmed: 31867031
Nature. 2007 Sep 27;449(7161):463-7
pubmed: 17721507
Bioinformatics. 2009 Jul 15;25(14):1754-60
pubmed: 19451168
Genome Res. 2020 Sep;30(9):1258-1273
pubmed: 32887686
Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2009 Mar;Chapter 4:Unit 4.10
pubmed: 19274634
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55864
pubmed: 23405223
Bioinformatics. 2018 Mar 1;34(5):725-731
pubmed: 29069293
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2007 Apr;10(2):149-55
pubmed: 17300983
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 Nov;38(11):1347-1355
pubmed: 32541955
Nat Plants. 2019 Sep;5(9):965-979
pubmed: 31506640
Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Mar 17;22(6):
pubmed: 33802641
Nat Methods. 2018 Jun;15(6):461-468
pubmed: 29713083
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 1;30(9):1236-40
pubmed: 24451626
Plant Methods. 2014 Jun 27;10:21
pubmed: 25053969
Mol Biotechnol. 2011 Oct;49(2):129-37
pubmed: 21302150
BMC Genomics. 2019 Dec 12;20(1):972
pubmed: 31830913
Bioinformatics. 2015 Oct 1;31(19):3210-2
pubmed: 26059717
J Agric Food Chem. 2014 Aug 13;62(32):7998-8007
pubmed: 25058466
Sci Data. 2019 Jul 19;6(1):127
pubmed: 31324816
BMC Bioinformatics. 2018 Nov 29;19(1):460
pubmed: 30497373
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Apr 28;117(17):9451-9457
pubmed: 32300014
Nat Commun. 2020 Jun 9;11(1):2902
pubmed: 32518223
Genome Biol. 2020 Feb 12;21(1):35
pubmed: 32051000
Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 8;11(1):7775
pubmed: 33833358
Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2019 Mar;65(1):e57
pubmed: 30466165
BMC Biol. 2019 Sep 18;17(1):75
pubmed: 31533702
Genome Biol. 2019 Nov 14;20(1):238
pubmed: 31727128
Nat Commun. 2019 Jul 19;10(1):3240
pubmed: 31324872
Bioinformatics. 2005 Aug 15;21(16):3448-9
pubmed: 15972284
Sci Rep. 2020 Jun 10;10(1):9424
pubmed: 32523024
Genome Biol. 2019 Nov 20;20(1):246
pubmed: 31747936
Genome Biol. 2021 May 25;22(1):161
pubmed: 34034781
Plant Physiol. 2017 Oct;175(2):786-801
pubmed: 28811336
Nat Commun. 2017 Jan 24;8:14061
pubmed: 28117401
Genome Biol. 2020 Oct 16;21(1):265
pubmed: 33066802
Nat Rev Genet. 2020 Mar;21(3):171-189
pubmed: 31729472
BMC Genomics. 2013 Jan 18;14:41
pubmed: 23331995
PLoS Comput Biol. 2018 Jan 26;14(1):e1005944
pubmed: 29373581
G3 (Bethesda). 2019 Mar 7;9(3):755-767
pubmed: 30642874
Nat Methods. 2012 Jan 30;9(2):133-7
pubmed: 22290183
Hortic Res. 2020 Nov 1;7(1):188
pubmed: 33328482
BMC Bioinformatics. 2017 Jul 12;18(1):338
pubmed: 28701187
Plant J. 2019 Dec;100(6):1289-1305
pubmed: 31437318
Nat Plants. 2019 Jan;5(1):54-62
pubmed: 30598532
Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Jan;40(Database issue):D1178-86
pubmed: 22110026
Mol Biol Evol. 2016 Oct;33(10):2706-19
pubmed: 27499133
DNA Res. 2021 Jan 19;28(1):
pubmed: 33484244
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 19;9(11):e112963
pubmed: 25409509
Nat Methods. 2016 Dec;13(12):1050-1054
pubmed: 27749838
PLoS Genet. 2018 Nov 20;14(11):e1007807
pubmed: 30458008
Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Jan;40(Database issue):D1202-10
pubmed: 22140109
Genome Biol. 2019 Jun 3;20(1):117
pubmed: 31159850
Bioinformatics. 2010 Mar 15;26(6):841-2
pubmed: 20110278
Nat Plants. 2018 Nov;4(11):879-887
pubmed: 30390080
Trends Genet. 2006 Sep;22(9):511-9
pubmed: 16872714
J Mol Biol. 1990 Oct 5;215(3):403-10
pubmed: 2231712
Genom Data. 2017 Sep 18;14:56-62
pubmed: 28971018
Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 11;7(1):17294
pubmed: 29229917
Nat Commun. 2016 Nov 11;7:13390
pubmed: 27834372