4.8 Article

Genome assembly of wild tea tree DASZ reveals pedigree and selection history of tea varieties

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17498-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFD1000601]
  2. Huazhong Agricultural University Scientific & Technological Self-Innovation Foundation
  3. European Union [664621, 739582, 664620]
  4. Max Planck Society
  5. German Ministry for Education and Research, Germany [031B0779B, 031B0779A, 031A536C]
  6. DFG [INST 222/1077-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wild teas are valuable genetic resources for studying domestication and breeding. Here we report the assembly of a high-quality chromosome-scale reference genome for an ancient tea tree. The further RNA sequencing of 217 diverse tea accessions clarifies the pedigree of tea cultivars and reveals key contributors in the breeding of Chinese tea. Candidate genes associated with flavonoid biosynthesis are identified by genome-wide association study. Specifically, diverse allelic function of CsANR, CsF3'5'H and CsMYB5 is verified by transient overexpression and enzymatic assays, providing comprehensive insights into the biosynthesis of catechins, the most important bioactive compounds in tea plants. The inconspicuous differentiation between ancient trees and cultivars at both genetic and metabolic levels implies that tea may not have undergone long-term artificial directional selection in terms of flavor-related metabolites. These genomic resources provide evolutionary insight into tea plants and lay the foundation for better understanding the biosynthesis of beneficial natural compounds. Wild teas are considered as valuable resource for studying domestication and breeding. Here, Zhang et al. report genome of wild tea DASZ and transcriptome of 217 accessions, which clarify pedigree of Chinese tea cultivars and show tea may not have undergone long-term artificial directional selection on flavor-related metabolites.

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

4.8
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