Back

Museomic approaches to genotype historic Cinchona barks

Canales, N. A.; Gardner, E.; Walker, K.; Gress, T.; Bieker, V.; Martin, M. D.; Nesbitt, M.; Antonelli, A.; Ronsted, N.; Barnes, C.

2022-04-28 genomics
10.1101/2022.04.26.489609 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Over the last few centuries, millions of plant specimens have been collected and stored within herbaria and biocultural collections. They therefore represent a considerable resource for a broad range of scientific uses. However, collections degrade over time, and it is therefore increasingly difficult to characterise their genetic signatures. Here, we genotyped highly degraded Cinchona barks and leaves from herbaria using two separate high-throughput sequencing methods (HtS) and compared their performance. We subsequently genotyped specimens using genome skimming, the most commonly performed high-throughput sequencing (HtS) technique. We additionally used a recently developed capture bait set (Angiosperm353) for a target enrichment approach. Specifically, phylogenomic analyses of modern leaf and historical barks of Cinchona were performed, including 23 historical barks and six fresh leaf specimens. We found that samples degraded over time, which directly reduced the quantity and quality of the data produced by both methodologies (in terms of reads mapped to the references). However, we found that both approaches generated enough data to infer phylogenetic relationships, even between highly degraded specimens that are over 230 years old. However, the target capture kit produced data for target nuclear loci and also chloroplast data, which allowed for phylogenies to be inferred from both genomes, whereas it was only possible to use chloroplast data using genome skimming. We therefore find the Angiosperms353 target capture kit a powerful alternative to genome skimming, which can be used to obtain more information from herbarium specimens, and ultimately additional cultural benefits.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Applications in Plant Sciences
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.3%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.4%
3
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.5%
4
The Plant Journal
197 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
7.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.6%
6
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.1%
7
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.8%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.7%
9
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
10
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
11
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.8%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.8%
13
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
14
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 46%
1.4%
15
Horticulture Research
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
16
Cell
370 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.9%
17
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.8%
18
The Plant Cell
141 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
20
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
21
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
22
Plant Direct
81 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
24
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
25
Plant Methods
39 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
26
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
27
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
222 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%