| Literature DB >> 23331995 |
Luca Venturini1, Alberto Ferrarini, Sara Zenoni, Giovanni Battista Tornielli, Marianna Fasoli, Silvia Dal Santo, Andrea Minio, Genny Buson, Paola Tononi, Elisa Debora Zago, Gianpiero Zamperin, Diana Bellin, Mario Pezzotti, Massimo Delledonne.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plants such as grapevine (Vitis spp.) display significant inter-cultivar genetic and phenotypic variation. The genetic components underlying phenotypic diversity in grapevine must be understood in order to disentangle genetic and environmental factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23331995 PMCID: PMC3556335 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-41
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Figure 1Genome coverage and sequence variation. a) Read counts normalized to gene length and log transformed (base=10) respect to the position on the 19 grape chromosomes. b) Classification of bases covered (≥3X) by feature type. c) Classification of SNPs based on the PN42004 genome annotation. d) Classification of indels based on the PN42004 annotation. e) Number of genes containing potentially disruptive mutations, plotted in logarithmic scale.
General statistics of grape V1 annotations and contig assemblies
| 29971 | 172826 | 140862 | 106670 | |
| 40713 | 3541 | 18312 | 18312 | |
| 18 | 200 | 200 | 200 | |
| 1331.07 | 345.57 | 1392.25 | 1307.56 | |
| 1126 | 282 | 1022.36 | 917 | |
| 1755 | 347 | 2163 | 2098 | |
| 738 | 219 | 678 | 607 |
Assembly was performed with Velvet and Oases. Clustering was carried out using CdHit.
Figure 2Contigs classification. a) Classification of contigs mapping onto the genome based on a comparison with the reference annotation V1 of assembly 12X. b) Distribution of the number of contigs per gene after filtering contigs for expression relative to the major isoforms (FMI). c) Classification of contigs and respective loci based on genomic region classes.
Comparison of contig mapping coordinates with grapevine annotations, public ESTs and cDNAs
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contigs assigned to known genes | 29442 | 9968 | 31221 | 23905 |
| Contigs assigned to novel genes | 2373 | 300 | 935 | 1635 |
| Contigs assigned to private genes | 13 | |||
Contigs coordinates were compared with those of public ESTs, cDNAs and V0 annotation of 12x assembly and with v1 annotation of 8x assembly. Number of contigs with at least a 50% overlap with the features of interest is reported for each comparison.
Figure 3Classification of contigs mapping in putative novel loci. Classification of contigs mapping in putative novel loci, based on the coding potential calculated by CPC and on comparison with NCBI nr plant proteins and Rfam databases. Potentially coding contigs were classified as full ORFs begin with a start codon and end with an in-frame stop codon, or as partial ORFs if one of these two features was missing. The following two categories include contigs with a negative coding potential but Blast hit against the NCBI NR protein database or contigs with similarity with sequences in the Rfam RNA database.
Figure 4Gene ontology (GO) classification of novel loci. Classification based on GO terms of 486 out of 2249 potentially novel protein-coding genes associated to least one GO term (level >1). a) Number of assignments to biological process GO onthology terms. b) Number of assignments to molecular function GO onthology terms.
Figure 5Classification of contigs not mapping onto the reference genome. a) Distribution of unmapped contigs based on similarity to sequences in the NCBI non-redundant protein database and nucleic acid sequence databases (VvGI 8.0 and PN40024 raw reads). b) Distribution of contaminant sequences across different taxa.
Figure 6Gene ontology (GO) classification of private genes. Assignments to GO terms of 100 out of 180 contig clusters corresponding to putative private genes. a) Number of assignments to biological process onthology terms. b) Number of assignments to molecular function onthology terms.
Figure 7Expression profiles of 13,886 genes differentially expressed during berry development and withering. a) The differentially expressed genes were divided into four groups according to the expression profile: 1) repressed genes; 2) transiently repressed genes; 3) transiently induced genes; 4) induced genes. Black: novel gene loci in un-annotated regions of the genome; blue: putative private genes; red: average profile of the expression group. b) Number of assignments to GO Slim plant terms for the novel or private genes differentially expressed among at least two stages.