4.7 Article

Draft Genome of Tanacetum Coccineum: Genomic Comparison of Closely Related Tanacetum-Family Plants

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23137039

关键词

Tanacetum coccineum; draft genome

资金

  1. Suntory Foundation for Life Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The plant species Tanacetum coccineum and Tanacetum cinerariifolium have differences in their biological defense systems and the production of pyrethrins. Comparative genomic analysis reveals distinct features of genes in these plants, providing clues to understand species-specific biodefense systems and the regulatory mechanisms underlying pyrethrin production.
The plant Tanacetum coccineum (painted daisy) is closely related to Tanacetum cinerariifolium (pyrethrum daisy). However, T. cinerariifolium produces large amounts of pyrethrins, a class of natural insecticides, whereas T. coccineum produces much smaller amounts of these compounds. Thus, comparative genomic analysis is expected to contribute a great deal to investigating the differences in biological defense systems, including pyrethrin biosynthesis. Here, we elucidated the 9.4 Gb draft genome of T. coccineum, consisting of 2,836,647 scaffolds and 103,680 genes. Comparative analyses of the draft genome of T. coccineum and that of T. cinerariifolium, generated in our previous study, revealed distinct features of T. coccineum genes. While the T. coccineum genome contains more numerous ribosome-inactivating protein (RIP)-encoding genes, the number of higher-toxicity type-II RIP-encoding genes is larger in T. cinerariifolium. Furthermore, the number of histidine kinases encoded by the T. coccineum genome is smaller than that of T. cinerariifolium, suggesting a biological correlation with pyrethrin biosynthesis. Moreover, the flanking regions of pyrethrin biosynthesis-related genes are also distinct between these two plants. These results provide clues to the elucidation of species-specific biodefense systems, including the regulatory mechanisms underlying pyrethrin production.

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