Abstract
Cremastra appendiculata (D. Don) Makino, an endangered terrestrial orchid with significant medicinal value, lacks comprehensive genomic resources to elucidate its evolution and conservation genetics. Here, we present a chromosome-level genome assembly for C. appendiculata, generated by integrating PacBio circular consensus sequencing and Hi-C technologies. The final genome assembly totals 2.40 Gb, achieving contig and scaffold N50 values of 27.47 Mb and 98.06 Mb, respectively. Hi-C scaffolding anchored 98.66% of the assembly to 24 chromosomes, with repetitive elements comprising 83.85% of the genome and a total of 31,703 protein-coding genes predicted, of which 29,094 (91.77%) were functionally annotated. This high-quality, chromosome-level reference genome provides a foundational resource for understanding the population genetic structure, adaptive evolution and speciation mechanisms of C. appendiculata, thereby offering valuable insights into its evolutionary history and conservation.
Background & Summary
The family Orchidaceae, renowned for extraordinary species diversity and vital ecological roles, is a treasure trove of medicinal plants historically revered in traditional herbal medicine. Medicinal orchids have been integral to pharmacopeias across Asia, Europe, Australia, America, and Africa, with species such as those within Dendrobium, Gastrodia, and Bulbophyllum exhibiting bioactive compounds like polysaccharides, alkaloids, and phenolics1. These compounds demonstrate therapeutic potential in treating inflammation, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, and metabolic syndromes2. Many studies have validated the efficacy of orchid-derived molecules, such as gastrodin from Gastrodia elata Blume in neuroprotection3 and polysaccharides from Dendrobium nobile Lindl. in immunomodulation4. However, these orchids face severe conservation challenges due to inherently low natural propagation rates stemming from their obligate mycorrhizal dependency. Orchid seeds, extremely small and devoid of endosperm, depend on symbiotic fungi for nutrient acquisition during germination and early seedling growth5. For example, the saprophytic orchid, G. elata, relies on fungal symbiosis throughout its entire growth period6. The conservation of medicinal orchids remains critical due to the biological bottleneck exacerbated by rampant overharvesting for commercial trade7. To achieve the balance between clinical demands and wild population conservation, it is essential to unravel the molecular mechanisms governing growth, development, and secondary metabolite biosynthesis. Therefore, sustainable cultivation practices and biotechnological innovations will effectively facilitate artificial propagation, enhance phytochemical yields, and ensure reliable medicinal supply chains.
Cremastra appendiculata, commonly known as “山慈菇 (shān cí gū)” in traditional Chinese medicine (Fig. 1a-b), is a shade-adapted perennial terrestrial orchid endemic to Asia, and epitomizes the intersection of ecological fragility and therapeutic promise8,9. Its pseudobulbous rhizomes (Fig. 1c) biosynthesize and accumulate approximately 190 compounds, including phenanthrene, dihydrophenanthrene, bibenzyl, flavonoids, terpenoids, glycosides, and aromatics, which exhibit a wide range of pharmacological activities such as antitumor, antibacterial, and antioxidant8. It has been traditionally used for treating rheumatoid arthritis, abscesses, snake bites, and lymphatic disorders, and more recently, pharmacological studies have validated its efficacy in reducing tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) levels and inhibiting cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) activity10. Despite its medicinal value, C. appendiculata suffers from low germination rates and slow vegetative growth, requiring 4–5 years to mature8. To enhance seed germination and seedling vigor, it requires symbiotic cultivation with specific fungal partners, primarily from the Psathyrellaceae11–14. Recent research has focused on optimizing ex situ conservation through micropropagation techniques, including asymmetric somatic embryogenesis and temporary immersion bioreactors, to produce pathogen-free plantlets15,16. In vitro studies reveal that mycorrhizal fungi, particularly species of Coprinellus, enhance seed germination rates and seedling vigor13,14,17. These efforts underscore a core research strategy that integrates ecological knowledge and biotechnological innovation to balance protection and utilization. This fundamentally relies on genomic and molecular knowledge to elucidate the growth regulation, stress response, and metabolite biosynthesis in C. appendiculata.
Fig. 1.

Morphology and karyotype of a two-year-old C. appendiculata plant. (a) Plant during flowering stage. (b) Plant during seed-bearing stage. (c) Pseudobulb with roots. (d) Metaphase chromosomes from root-tip cells. (e) Karyotype analysis showing a diploid chromosome number of 2n = 2x = 48.
Advanced genomic and transcriptomic analyses have unveiled genetic determinants underlying the unique biology of C. appendiculata, providing critical insights for conservation and cultivation. Chloroplast genome sequencing revealed that conserved genes, such as rbcL, ycf1, and accD, are correlated with its adaptive evolution in response to environmental factors18,19. Transcriptomic analyses of the symbiotic interaction between C. appendiculata and its mycorrhizal fungus identified key genes related to symbiotic germination, such as the DHN gene family, Xero1, ZEP and NCED320. Differentially expressed gene (DEG) analysis suggested that IPT, CYP735A, CCD7/8, WUS, and BRC1 play critical roles in shoot branching regulation21. Genomic and transcriptomic data of C. appendiculata provide insights into the evolution of the biosynthetic pathway of colchicine, a pharmaceutically active compound22. Despite these advances, critical gaps still remain, as system-level regulatory networks are still fragmented, and genotype-phenotype linkages are poorly defined. Functional validation of candidate genes involved in symbiotic seed germination and clonal branch growth remains at a preliminary stage, largely due to the lack of a high-quality reference genome for C. appendiculata. Meanwhile, population genomics studies aimed at assessing its genetic diversity and local adaptation to facilitate cultivation are also limited.
To address these limitations, we present a chromosome-level genome assembly of C. appendiculata leveraging PacBio High Fidelity (HiFi) long-read sequencing and Hi-C scaffolding. The assembly achieved a contig N50 of 27.47 Mb and a scaffold N50 of 98.06 Mb, compared with 0.68 Mb and 80.16 Mb in the earlier draft22. A total of 98.66% of the assembled sequences were anchored to 24 chromosomes, compared with 87.21% previously. The assembly completeness assessment showed 1,539 complete BUSCOs (95.35%), which is significantly higher than the 86.4% completeness reported in the prior genome22. We identified 31,703 protein-coding genes and 20,439 non-coding RNAs, representing approximately a 1.51-fold and 4.89-fold increase, respectively, relative to the 20,991 protein-coding genes and 4,181 non-coding RNAs previously annotated. Repetitive sequences accounted for 83.85% of the genome, substantially higher than the 59.15% observed in the previous assembly, reflecting the improved resolution of repetitive regions in the chromosome-level assembly (Table 1). By utilizing more advanced sequencing technologies and assembly strategies, we generated a chromosome-level genome assembly for C. appendiculata of significantly higher quality than reported earlier. This enhanced genomic resource provides a robust foundation for future basic biological and application research on C. appendiculata.
Table 1.
Statistics of the genome assembly of C. appendiculata.
| Genomic features | This study | Previous assembly22 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contigs | Total number | 347 | 16,208 |
| Total length (bp) | 2,404,494,502 | 2,362,341,580 | |
| N50 length (bp) | 27,470,550 | 677,859 | |
| N90 length (bp) | 6,998,514 | 60,438 | |
| Maximum length (bp) | 104,288,895 | 11,563,929 | |
| GC content (%) | 39.00 | 39.39 | |
| Scaffolds | Total number | 30 | 8,767 |
| Total length (bp) | 2,404,653,002 | 2,365,912,979 | |
| N50 length (bp) | 98,055,964 | 80,155,791 | |
| N90 length (bp) | 78,414,824 | 146,279 | |
| Maximum length (bp) | 141,062,403 | 117,118,055 | |
| GC content (%) | 39.00 | 39.39 | |
| Chromosomes | 24 | 24 | |
| Hi-C anchored rate (%) | 98.66 | 87.21 | |
| Assembly size (Gb) | 2.40 | 2.36 | |
| BUSCO completeness (%) | 95.35 | 86.4 | |
| Protein-coding genes | 31,703 | 20,991 | |
| Non-coding RNAs | 20,439 | 4,181 | |
| Repeat Content (%) | 83.85 | 59.15 | |
Methods
Plant material
The plants of C. appendiculata were sourced from cultivated populations, derived from seeds of a single maternal plant, growing under natural environmental conditions (with minimal anthropogenic intervention) on Jinfo Mountain in Chongqing, China (29°3′4″ N, 107°18′29″ E). Two individual plants were harvested on October 27, 2024, with one designated for DNA and Hi-C sequencing and the other for RNA sequencing. Immediately after collection, the samples were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen, transported to the laboratory, and stored at −80 °C. Plants for karyotype analysis were transplanted and cultivated in the greenhouse of Beijing Forestry University (40°00′38″ N, 116°20′38″ E) with natural light and weekly watering.
Karyotype analysis
Root tips (0.5 cm) were collected in the morning and pretreated in a pre-fixation solution of saturated p-dichlorobenzene and 0.1 M 8-hydroxyquinoline (50:1) on ice for 5 min, then fixed at 4 °C for 4 h. After rinsing with distilled water, the samples were treated in 0.075 M KCl at 4 °C for 30 min, rinsed again, and fixed in Carnoy’s fluid (methanol:glacial acetic acid, 3:1) at 4 °C for 24 h. Hydrolysis was then performed in 1 M HCl at room temperature for 45 min, followed by enzymatic digestion with 6% cellulase and 4% macerozyme (2:1) at 37 °C for 5 h. The digested material was rinsed and treated in distilled water at 37 °C for 30 min.
The treated root tips were transferred onto a chilled clean slide, gently crushed with forceps to remove debris, stained with Carbol fuchsin for 2 h, and covered with a coverslip. Excess dye was removed with filter paper, and chromosomes were evenly spread by tapping the coverslip with a pencil eraser. Metaphase cells were observed with a Nikon 80i microscope, and well-dispersed chromosomes were imaged. The micrographs were analyzed using Zeiss Karyotype software for segmentation, pairing, and karyotyping. The results revealed that C. appendiculata is a diploid species with a chromosome number of 2n = 2x = 48 (Fig. 1d-e).
DNA extraction and sequencing
DNA was extracted from fresh leaves of C. appendiculata using a magnetic bead-based method. Leaves were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen, ground to a fine powder, and lysed with 3 mL of Tissue Lysis Buffer 1 (1% PVP, 1% sodium metabisulfite, 0.5 M NaCl, 0.1 M Tris-HCl, 0.05 M EDTA, and 1.25% SDS) at 65 °C for 30 min. After cooling, the lysate was centrifuged at 4 °C and 12,000 × g for 10 min. The supernatant was mixed with 1 mL of Settling Buffer 2 (5 M potassium acetate), incubated at 4 °C for 5 min, and centrifuged. The supernatant was mixed with 900 µL lysate, 900 µL DNA Binding Buffer (20% PEG 8000 and 3 M NaCl), and 50 µL Magnetic-Bead Buffer (2% carboxylate-modified SpeedBeads, 18% PEG 8000, 1 M NaCl, 0.01 M Tris-HCl, 1 mM EDTA and 0.05% Tween-20), then briefly centrifuged, and incubated at room temperature for 5 min for DNA binding. Magnetic separation was performed until the supernatant cleared. After supernatant removal, the beads were washed twice with 75% ethanol and air-dried. DNA was eluted with 200 µL of preheated Elution Buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.5, 50 °C).
The extracted genomic DNA was assessed for concentration, integrity, and purity. High-quality DNA was sheared using the Megaruptor system, and 20 kb fragments were size-selected using the Sage ELF instrument. After damage and end repair, PacBio adapters containing hairpin structures were ligated to generate circularized SMRTbell libraries. Linear and damaged DNA molecules were removed by enzymatic digestion, and libraries within the target size range were further refined using the automated Sage Science instrument. A 20 kb insert size library was constructed and sequenced in circular consensus sequencing (CCS) mode on the PacBio Revio system using 2 cells, generating a total of 92.60 Gb of high-quality CCS data with an N50 of 16,787 bp (Fig. 2a). Based on an estimated genome size of 2,342 Mb by genome survey, the sequencing depth was approximately 39.54×.
Fig. 2.

Characteristics of the C. appendiculata genome assembly. (a) Length distribution of HiFi clean reads. (b) 21-mer frequency distribution spectrum from a diploid genome analysis. (c) Hi-C contact heatmap illustrating interactions across the 24 chromosomes. (d) Circos plot summarizing genomic features of the assembly. The plot from outer to inner rings depicts: chromosomes, gene density, overall transposable elements (TEs) density, Copia LTR retrotransposon density, Gypsy LTR retrotransposon density, GC content, HiFi reads depth, and collinearity blocks. Tracks II–VIII are calculated in 500 kb sliding windows.
RNA extraction and sequencing
Total RNA was extracted from fresh leaf blade, petiole, pseudobulb, root, coralloid rhizome, and scape tissues of a C. appendiculata individual using a magnetic bead-based protocol. Tissues were ground and lysed in CTAB buffer supplemented with β-mercaptoethanol, followed by incubation at 65 °C for 12 min and centrifugation. The supernatant was mixed with 800 µL of extraction solution and centrifuged again. The clarified supernatant was bound to magnetic beads and purified using an automatic nucleic acid extractor. mRNA was enriched using oligo(dT)-attached magnetic beads, fragmented, and reverse-transcribed into double-stranded cDNA. After end repair, adenylation, and adapter ligation, libraries were amplified by PCR. Circularized single-stranded DNA was then generated and subjected to DNA nanoballs (DNBs) formation followed by sequencing on the DNBSEQ platform using combinatorial Probe-Anchor Synthesis (cPAS) technology. Following data filtering with SOAPnuke23 (v2.1.9, parameters: -n 0.01 -l 20 -q 0.4 --adaMR 0.25 --polyX 50 --minReadLen 150), a total of 43.21 Gb of clean data derived from six tissues were utilized for downstream gene annotation.
Hi-C library preparation and sequencing
Hi-C libraries were constructed from cross-linked leaf tissue of C. appendiculata using formaldehyde fixation followed by cell lysis and chromatin digestion with MboI. The digested fragments were biotin-labeled, proximity-ligated, and de-crosslinked, then purified and treated with T4 DNA polymerase to remove unligated biotin marks. The purified DNA was fragmented via Covaris, and biotinylated fragments were captured with streptavidin-coated magnetic beads. Libraries were prepared through end repair, adenylation, adapter ligation, and PCR amplification, followed by circularization to generate single-stranded DNA templates. Single-stranded circular DNA was amplified via rolling circle replication to produce DNBs, each containing multiple copies of the original template. High-quality DNBs were then deposited into patterned nanoarrays using a high-intensity DNA nanochip technique and sequenced by cPAS on the DNBSEQ platform, and a total of 296.42 Gb of raw data was obtained. After filtering out adapter sequences and low-quality reads using SOAPnuke (parameters: -n 0.02 -l 20 -q 0.4 -i -G 2 --polyX 50 -Q 2 --seqType 0), 293.66 Gb of high-quality clean data were retained.
Genome assembly
The genome size of C. appendiculata was estimated through k-mer spectrum analysis (k = 21) using DNBSEQ short reads. K-mer frequency distribution was generated with Jellyfish24 (v2.2.6) and analyzed through GenomeScope25 (v2.0), yielding an estimated genome size of 2.34 Gb with 0.988% heterozygosity (Fig. 2b). For genome assembly, PacBio HiFi reads were assembled using Hifiasm26 (v0.25.0-r726) with default parameters, producing a 2.56 Gb draft genome consisting of 721 contigs, with a contig N50 of 27.47 Mb, indicating a high-quality assembly (Table 2). Assembly quality was assessed with BUSCO27 (v5.4.7) using embryophyta_odb10 dataset. The contig-level assembly showed 95.50% complete BUSCOs, demonstrating a high genome completeness.
Table 2.
Statistics for the initial assembly of HiFi reads.
| Type | Length (bp) | Number |
|---|---|---|
| N10 | 83,372,276 | 3 |
| N20 | 59,646,780 | 7 |
| N30 | 49,484,795 | 12 |
| N40 | 38,395,531 | 17 |
| N50 | 27,470,550 | 25 |
| N60 | 22,661,324 | 35 |
| N70 | 18,802,091 | 48 |
| N80 | 12,386,643 | 65 |
| N90 | 6,050,625 | 93 |
| Max Length | 105,405,287 | — |
| Total Number | — | 721 |
| Total Length | 2,562,488,398 | — |
| GC Ratio | 39% | — |
Hi-C data evaluation and scaffolding
Hi-C paired-end reads were aligned to the assembled genome using Juicer28 (v1.6). The quality of the Hi-C library was assessed based on the proportion of valid Hi-C contacts. The results showed that 56.47% of the sequenced read pairs were valid Hi-C contacts, accompanied by high-quality metrics including an 88.72% ligation motif rate, 3.87% PCR duplication rate, and 80.52% alignable reads (Table 3). The remaining read pairs consisted of 19.04% chimeric ambiguous and 0.44% unmapped reads, which are typical for plant Hi-C experiments. Before scaffolding, PCR duplicates were removed using Juicer with default parameters. Chromosome-scale scaffolding was performed using 3D-DNA29 (parameters: -m haploid --early-exit) for the first round, avoiding the error-prone iterative refinement that often introduces mis-joins and excessive fragmentation. The assembly was then manually adjusted using Juicebox30 (v2.20.00) to correct errors and fix mis-joins. After removing 157,993,896 bp of redundant sequences, a total of 2,404,494,502 bp remained in the assembled genome. Of these, 2,372,317,629 bp were successfully anchored to 24 chromosomes, yielding a chromosome-level assembly with a high Hi-C anchoring rate of 98.66% and a scaffold N50 of 98.06 Mb (Table 4).
Table 3.
Statistics of Hi-C data.
| Type | Number of reads pair | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Sequenced read pairs | 978,883,141 | — |
| Normal paired | 376,797,425 | 38.49 |
| Chimeric paired | 411,442,276 | 42.03 |
| Chimeric ambiguous | 186,371,921 | 19.04 |
| Unmapped | 4,271,519 | 0.44 |
| Ligation motif present | 868,435,162 | 88.72 |
| Alignable (normal + chimeric paired) | 788,239,701 | 80.52 |
| Unique reads | 750,381,094 | 76.66 |
| PCR duplicates | 37,858,607 | 3.87 |
| Optical duplicates | 0 | 0.00 |
| Hi-C contacts | 552,792,944 | 56.47 |
Table 4.
Statistics for the chromosome-level assembly.
| Type | Contig | Scaffold | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size (bp) | Number | Size (bp) | Number | |
| N10 | 77,617,613 | 3 | 135,709,658 | 2 |
| N20 | 50,696,069 | 7 | 123,746,081 | 4 |
| N30 | 46,320,845 | 12 | 111,658,371 | 6 |
| N40 | 35,086,371 | 18 | 105,500,870 | 8 |
| N50 | 27,470,550 | 25 | 98,055,964 | 11 |
| N60 | 22,534,736 | 35 | 92,744,121 | 13 |
| N70 | 16,879,318 | 47 | 89,574,049 | 16 |
| N80 | 12,529,757 | 63 | 84,163,752 | 19 |
| N90 | 6,998,514 | 88 | 78,414,824 | 22 |
| Max Length | 104,288,895 | — | 141,062,403 | — |
| Total Number | — | 347 | — | 30 |
| Total Length | 2,404,494,502 | — | 2,404,653,002 | — |
| GC Ratio | 39% | — | 39% | — |
Assembly quality was evaluated by dividing the genome into non-overlapping 600 kb bins and quantifying Hi-C interaction intensity as the number of read pairs between any two bins. These values were visualized in a heatmap, which showed strong interaction signals along the diagonal of the Hi-C contact matrix and weaker off-diagonal signals. The diagonal pattern revealed 24 distinct chromosomal scaffolds with frequent local interactions, consistent with Hi-C-based scaffolding and confirming the high accuracy and continuity of the chromosome-level assembly (Fig. 2c-d, Table 5).
Table 5.
Summary of 24 chromosomes of C. appendiculata.
| ID | Length (bp) | N content (%) | GC content (%) | Gap number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| chr1 | 141,062,403 | 0.00 | 38.86 | 9 |
| chr2 | 135,709,658 | 0.00 | 38.49 | 12 |
| chr3 | 130,665,096 | 0.00 | 39.16 | 9 |
| chr4 | 123,746,081 | 0.00 | 38.53 | 2 |
| chr5 | 117,369,186 | 0.00 | 37.74 | 7 |
| chr6 | 111,658,371 | 0.01 | 38.64 | 12 |
| chr7 | 111,328,060 | 0.00 | 38.91 | 3 |
| chr8 | 105,500,870 | 0.00 | 38.42 | 4 |
| chr9 | 98,813,456 | 0.00 | 38.17 | 6 |
| chr10 | 98,258,163 | 0.01 | 38.19 | 12 |
| chr11 | 98,055,964 | 0.00 | 39.27 | 9 |
| chr12 | 95,890,182 | 0.00 | 38.44 | 3 |
| chr13 | 92,744,121 | 0.00 | 38.50 | 5 |
| chr14 | 92,647,880 | 0.00 | 38.76 | 4 |
| chr15 | 89,737,884 | 0.00 | 38.78 | 5 |
| chr16 | 89,574,049 | 0.01 | 39.04 | 9 |
| chr17 | 88,668,927 | 0.00 | 38.06 | 4 |
| chr18 | 87,964,890 | 0.01 | 38.99 | 9 |
| chr19 | 84,163,752 | 0.01 | 38.20 | 11 |
| chr20 | 83,684,254 | 0.00 | 39.41 | 4 |
| chr21 | 83,362,299 | 0.00 | 38.83 | 8 |
| chr22 | 78,414,824 | 0.00 | 38.35 | 4 |
| chr23 | 76,936,972 | 0.00 | 38.70 | 6 |
| chr24 | 56,360,287 | 0.00 | 40.27 | 1 |
Repeat annotation
Tandem repeats were identified with Tandem Repeats Finder31 (v4.09, parameters: 2 7 7 80 10 50 2000 -d -h), accounting for approximately 8.67% of the genome. Transposable elements (TEs) were annotated using RepeatProteinMask32 with default parameters and RepeatMasker32 (v4.1.5, parameters: -nolow -no_is -norna -engine ncbi) based on the RepBase library33, accounting for approximately 23.02% and 19.47%, respectively. De novo prediction using LTRharvest34 (v1.6.5, parameters: -mintsd 4 -maxtsd 6 -motif tgca -similar 80 -longoutput -motifmis 1 -minlenltr 150 -maxlenltr 15000) identified LTR retrotransposons covering 22.93% of the genome. Using the de novo TEs predicted by LTRharvest and RepeatModeler35 (v2.0.5, parameters: -engine ncbi) as a custom library, the genome was re-annotated with RepeatMasker, revealing 78.24% de novo repetitive sequences. After removing overlaps, the final non-redundant repeat sequences (including simple repeats, satellites, TEs and unclassified repeats) accounted for 83.85% of the genome (Table 6). The classification results of the repetitive sequences were presented in Table 7.
Table 6.
Statistics results of repetitive sequence.
| Type | Repeat length (bp) | % of genome |
|---|---|---|
| TRF | 208,438,218 | 8.66812 |
| RepeatProteinMask | 553,605,129 | 23.02225 |
| RepeatMasker | 468,071,229 | 19.46523 |
| Denovo | 1,881,411,880 | 78.24047 |
| LTRharvest | 551,335,944 | 22.92788 |
| Total | 2,016,220,372 | 83.84662 |
Table 7.
The classification results of the repetitive sequences.
| Type | Length (bp) | % of genome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retro | LTR/Copia | 700,212,684 | 29.11907 |
| LTR/Gypsy | 973,512,552 | 40.48453 | |
| LTR/Ngaro | 255,907 | 0.01064 | |
| LTR/TATE | 0 | 0.00000 | |
| LTR/Pao | 207,179 | 0.00862 | |
| LTR/Viper | 1,302 | 0.00005 | |
| LTR/ERV | 1,164,795 | 0.04844 | |
| LTR/ERVL | 23,614 | 0.00098 | |
| LTR/ERVK | 403,942 | 0.01680 | |
| LTR/Delta | 0 | 0.00000 | |
| LTR/Lenti | 0 | 0.00000 | |
| LTR/Foamy | 0 | 0.00000 | |
| LTR/Caulimoviru | 66,431 | 0.00276 | |
| LTR/Other | 9,767,886 | 0.40621 | |
| SINE | 2,174,066 | 0.09041 | |
| LINE | 77,034,377 | 3.20355 | |
| Other | 0 | 0.00000 | |
| DNA | Academ | 123,831 | 0.00515 |
| CACTA | 22,149,693 | 0.92112 | |
| Crypton | 1,491,867 | 0.06204 | |
| Dada | 196,085 | 0.00815 | |
| Ginger | 1,164,529 | 0.04843 | |
| hAT | 19,209,855 | 0.79886 | |
| Helitron | 4,972,280 | 0.20678 | |
| Kolobok | 924,428 | 0.03844 | |
| Mutator-like | 9,057,334 | 0.37666 | |
| P_Element | 1,482,525 | 0.06165 | |
| PIF-Harbinger | 1,649,819 | 0.06861 | |
| PiggyBac | 354,730 | 0.01475 | |
| Sola | 406,816 | 0.01692 | |
| TcMar | 1,155,458 | 0.04805 | |
| Other | 2,976,975 | 0.12380 | |
| Satellite | 151,994 | 0.00632 | |
| Simple_repeat | 0 | 0.00000 | |
| Other | 611,152 | 0.02542 | |
| Unknown | 123,448,292 | 5.13373 | |
| Total | 1,956,352,398 | 81.35695 | |
Gene prediction and functional annotation
An integrated approach, which involved de novo prediction, homology search, and transcriptome-based prediction, was employed to annotate protein-coding genes in the genome. Homology-based prediction was performed utilizing annotated information from eight related species, Bletilla striata (Thunb.) Rchb. f.36, C. appendiculata22, Cymbidium goeringii (Rchb. f.) Rchb. f.37, Cymbidium mannii Rchb. f.38, Dendrobium loddigesii Rolfe39, D. nobile40, G. elata41, and Papilionanthe Miss Joaquim ‘Agnes’42. Initial homology prediction was conducted using GeMoMa43 (v1.9, parameters: AnnotationFinalizer.r = NO AnnotationFinalizer.u = YES p = false o = true). Structurally complete genes were selected from these predictions to train the de novo gene prediction tools Augustus44 (v3.5.0) and SNAP45 (v2006-07-28) with default parameters. The transcriptome-based prediction was performed by mapping transcriptomic reads to the assembled genome using HISAT246 (v2.2.1, parameters: --max-intronlen 50000 --sensitive --dta --dta-cufflinks --phred33 --no-discordant --no-mixed), transcripts were assembled with StringTie47 (v2.2.1), and open reading frames (ORF) were predicted using TransDecoder (v5.7.1, https://github.com/TransDecoder/TransDecoder, parameters: --single_best_only). Gene models predicted by the above tools were integrated using EVidenceModeler48 (EVM, v1.1.1). The EVM-integrated gene models were refined and analyzed for alternative splicing using PASA49 with transcriptomic evidence. This integrated annotation pipeline generated 31,703 genes and 42,258 transcripts, with summary statistics presented in Table 8.
Table 8.
Basic structural statistics of gene prediction.
| Type | Gene set | Number | Average gene length (bp) | Average CDS length (bp) | Average exon per gene | Average exon length (bp) | Average intron length (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De novo | Augustus | 343,798 | 4,018.55 | 1,549.48 | 5.94 | 260.88 | 499.87 |
| SNAP | 344,620 | 7,041.08 | 1,014.83 | 4.84 | 209.66 | 1,569.20 | |
| Homolog | B. striata | 11,576 | 10,747.09 | 1,118.60 | 4.45 | 251.61 | 2,794.24 |
| C. appendiculata | 91,610 | 4,143.94 | 1,556.78 | 2.42 | 642.30 | 1,817.11 | |
| C. goeringii | 32,062 | 8,269.31 | 897.17 | 3.52 | 254.65 | 2,921.77 | |
| C. mannii | 29,111 | 11,217.15 | 1,035.89 | 4.33 | 239.04 | 3,054.15 | |
| D. loddigesii | 66,927 | 11,614.01 | 2,371.17 | 2.79 | 851.24 | 5,176.49 | |
| D. nobile | 51,276 | 12,279.67 | 1,310.13 | 3.29 | 397.95 | 4,785.63 | |
| G. elata | 28,262 | 9,115.09 | 1,234.68 | 3.54 | 348.39 | 3,097.76 | |
| Papilionanthe | 43,431 | 7,386.97 | 857.70 | 3.17 | 270.79 | 3,012.40 | |
| RNA-seq | Transcript | 37,619 | 17,577.67 | 1,115.07 | 5.31 | 210.10 | 3,822.03 |
| Final | — | 31,703 | 10,806.29 | 1,199.21 | 4.60 | 260.83 | 2,670.30 |
Subsequently, the completeness of the gene set was assessed using BUSCO with embryophyta_odb10 database. The assessment revealed that the final gene set contained 1,520 conserved orthologs (94.2%), including 1,474 single-copy (91.3%), and 46 duplicated (2.9%) genes (Table 9). Among the predicted genes, a total of 29,094 (91.77%) were functionally annotated in at least one database, 13,795 genes were annotated across all five databases of Non-Redundant Protein Database (NR, https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/db/FASTA/), InterPro50, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG)51, Swiss-Prot52, and euKaryotic Orthologous Groups (KOG, https://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pub/COG/KOG/) (Fig. 3a). Specifically, 17,942 genes (56.59%) were annotated in the KOG database (Fig. 3b), 15,754 genes (49.69%) were annotated in the Gene Ontology (GO) database53,54 (Fig. 3c), and 18,117 genes (57.14%) were mapped to KEGG pathways (Fig. 3d). The 17,908 genes (56.5%) lacking cross-database annotation were not enriched for repetitive sequences or species-specific loci, with incomplete annotation likely reflecting limited functional annotation coverage for non-model plants. Although they tend to have shorter CDS and simpler structures, 64.1% of these genes possessed identifiable protein domains, supporting their status as genuine protein-coding genes rather than annotation artifacts.
Table 9.
Evaluation results of gene set completeness.
| Type | Number | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Complete BUSCOs (C) | 1,520 | 94.2 |
| Complete and single-copy BUSCOs (S) | 1,474 | 91.3 |
| Complete and duplicated BUSCOs (D) | 46 | 2.9 |
| Fragmented BUSCOs (F) | 28 | 1.7 |
| Missing BUSCOs (M) | 66 | 4.1 |
| Total BUSCO groups searched | 1,614 | — |
Fig. 3.

Gene functional annotation of C. appendiculata genome. (a) Venn diagram of gene annotations against five databases: NR, InterPro, KEGG, Swiss-Prot, and KOG. (b) KOG functional classification. The y-axis represents KOG categories, and the x-axis shows the number of genes. (c) GO classification at two levels. The bar chart shows the distribution of genes across various GO terms. (d) KEGG pathway annotation. The y-axis lists KEGG pathways, and the x-axis indicates the number of genes assigned to each.
Compared with the previous draft assembly, 7,435 newly identified genes were defined as those lacking any BLASTP match or showing both <30% identity and <50% coverage against the earlier gene set. Functional enrichment analysis of these newly recovered genes using GO, KEGG, KOG, and InterPro databases revealed prominent categories including ribosome biogenesis (GO: U3 snoRNA binding, K14774, KOG: nuclear structure), primary metabolism and stress signaling (K00860, K12261, K22312), and transposable element-associated domains (PF03004) (Fig. 4). Complementary keyword-based annotation further identified 28 genes associated with secondary metabolism, 48 with disease resistance, and 24 with nutrient transport potentially relevant to mycorrhizal symbiosis. These findings underscore the value of this high-quality genome for future functional and applied research on C. appendiculata.
Fig. 4.

Functional enrichment analysis of 7,435 newly identified genes compared with the previous draft assembly. Bubble charts showing enriched functional categories in the new gene set based on (a) GO, (b) KEGG, (c) KOG, and (d) InterPro annotations. The x-axis represents the gene ratio (proportion of new genes assigned to each term). Bubble size indicates the number of newly recovered genes in each category, and color intensity reflects -log10(p-value) from hypergeometric tests using the full gene set as background.
Non-coding RNA annotation
Non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), including miRNAs, tRNAs, rRNAs, and snRNAs, perform important biological functions despite not being translated into proteins. Using covariance models from the Rfam database55 and the Infernal software package (v1.1.5)56, 115 miRNAs and 1,010 snRNAs were identified in the genome. The tRNAscan-SE 2.0 tool57 was employed to identify tRNA sequences based on their structural characteristics, and 523 tRNAs were identified. For rRNAs, homologs from related species were used as references for BLASTN alignment, through which 18,791 rRNAs were identified. In total, ncRNA sequences accounted for approximately 0.20% of the genome (Table 10).
Table 10.
Statistics of ncRNAs annotation results.
| Type | Copy | Average length (bp) | Total length (bp) | % of genome | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| miRNA | 115 | 122.86087 | 14,129 | 0.000588 | |
| tRNA | 523 | 77.0038241 | 40,273 | 0.001675 | |
| rRNA | 18S | 2,125 | 1,213.57882 | 2,578,855 | 0.107244 |
| 28S | 5,644 | 142.061481 | 801,795 | 0.033343 | |
| 5.8S | 1,410 | 155.45461 | 219,191 | 0.009115 | |
| 5S | 9,612 | 108.341136 | 1,041,375 | 0.043307 | |
| snRNA | CD-box | 523 | 108.026769 | 56,498 | 0.00235 |
| HACA-box | 47 | 127.93617 | 6,013 | 0.00025 | |
| Splicing | 440 | 107.731818 | 47,402 | 0.001971 | |
| Total | 20,439 | — | — | 0.199843 | |
Data Records
All sequencing data, including PacBio HiFi reads, Hi-C reads, and RNA-seq data from six tissues, have been deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under accession SRP69110258, and the chromosomal-level genome assembly has been deposited in NCBI GenBank under accession GCA_058369495.159. The same data have also been deposited in the Genome Sequence Archive (GSA)60 in the National Genomics Data Center (NGDC)61 of the China National Center for Bioinformation (CNCB) under BioProject accession PRJCA046810, with GSA accession number CRA03168362. The assembly and annotations are available in the NGDC Genome Warehouse (GWH)63 under the accession number GWHGWEK00000000.164.
Technical Validation
BUSCO assessment
Genome assembly quality was evaluated using BUSCO with default parameters. A lineage-specific set of conserved single-copy orthologous genes from the embryophyta_odb10 database served as the reference. The assembled genome was assessed for alignment coverage, integrity, and accuracy against the reference. The assembly achieved 95.35% complete BUSCOs, indicating high genome completeness.
Merqury assessment
The reference-free quality assessment tool Merqury65 (v1.3) was used to evaluate genome accuracy and completeness. Using PacBio HiFi reads, Merqury reported a phred-scaled quality value (QV) of 69.76, corresponding to an error rate of approximately 1.06 × 10−7, with a completeness of 86.58%. Using DNBSEQ short reads, the QV was 52.24 with an error rate of approximately 5.96 × 10−6 and a completeness of 87.00%. The HiFi-based QV was notably higher, reflecting the superior accuracy of the long-read data and providing a more reliable estimate of base-level consensus quality. Together, these results confirmed the exceptionally high accuracy and completeness of the assembly.
CRAQ assessment
The quality and consensus reliability of the genome were further assessed using CRAQ66 (v1.10), which evaluates read-assembly congruence through multidimensional metrics. The genome showed excellent coverage, with 99.37% of bases covered by reads and only 0.91% identified as low-confidence regions. The clip-based regional heterozygosity (Avg.CRH = 7.71) and clip-based structural heterozygosity (Avg.CSH = 1.35) indicated that the genome exhibits a certain degree of natural heterozygosity, which is not unusual for orchids and does not compromise assembly accuracy. Most significantly, the clip-based regional errors (Avg.CRE = 0.21; R-AQI = 97.94) and clip-based structural errors (Avg.CSE = 0.03; S-AQI = 96.73) both substantially exceeded the threshold for high-quality assemblies, demonstrating that this genome of C. appendiculata achieved reference-grade quality.
QUAST assessment
QUAST67 (v5.3.0) assessment was performed to evaluate the contiguity of the assembled genome. The assembly demonstrated exceptional contiguity, with N50 and N90 values of 98.06 Mb and 78.41 Mb, respectively, and corresponding L50 and L90 values of 11 and 22. These results showed that 11 scaffolds cover 50% of the whole genome and 22 scaffolds cover 90%, confirming that the assembly represents a high-quality, contiguous, and biologically representative reference genome for C. appendiculata.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Yunpeng Cao from the Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, for providing the genome data of B. striata. This research was supported by the Special Funds for Biosafety and Genetic Resource Management of the National Forestry and Grassland Administration (KJZXSA202504) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2025M772745).
Author contributions
J. C. and Y. L. designed the study. Y. T. and B. X. performed the experiments. Y. T. and R. Y. analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. S. D., X. Q. and X. Z. helped in sample collection and revised the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
J. C. discloses support for the research of this work from the Special Funds for Biosafety and Genetic Resource Management of the National Forestry and Grassland Administration [KJZXSA202504]. Y. T. discloses support for the research of this work from the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2025M772745].
Data Availability
The PacBio HiFi, Hi-C, and RNA-seq raw reads generated in this study are available in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive under accession SRP691102 and in the Genome Sequence Archive of the NGDC under accession CRA031683. The chromosome-level genome assembly is available in NCBI GenBank under accession GCA_058369495.1 and in the Genome Warehouse of the NGDC under accession GWHGWEK00000000.1.
Code availability
All bioinformatics analyses in this research were performed using recognized community-standard software following protocols and guidelines provided by the respective software developers. The specific software versions and corresponding parameters have been exhaustively delineated in the Methods section. No custom code was developed or implemented for this research.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
These authors contributed equally: Yongchao Tang, Bo Xiao, Ruimin Yu.
References
- 1.Choudhary, D. et al. Medicinal orchids: Traditional uses and recent advances. Annals of Phytomedicine12(1), 203–211, 10.54085/ap.2023.12.1.4 (2023). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gutiérrez, R. M. P. Orchids: A review of uses in traditional medicine, its phytochemistry and pharmacology. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research4(8), 592–638, 10.5897/JMPR10.012 (2010). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Guo, H., Cheng, D., Zhang, C. & Xue, F. The pharmacological effects of gastrodin and the progress in the treatment of neurological disorders. The American Journal of Chinese Medicine53(3), 803–831, 10.1142/s0192415x25500302 (2025). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Li, X. et al. A systematic review on polysaccharides from Dendrobium genus: Recent advances in the preparation, structural characterization, bioactive molecular mechanisms, and applications. The American Journal of Chinese Medicine50(2), 1–39, 10.1142/s0192415x22500185 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bhatti, S. K. & Thakur, M. An overview on orchids and their interaction with endophytes. The Botanical Review88, 485–504, 10.1007/s12229-022-09275-5 (2022). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Liu, J. et al. The role of symbiotic fungi in the life cycle of Gastrodia elata Blume (Orchidaceae): a comprehensive review. Frontiers in Plant Science14, 1309038, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1309038 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Tiwari, P., Sharma, A., Bose, S. K. & Park, K.-I. Advances in orchid biology: Biotechnological achievements, translational success, and commercial outcomes. Horticulturae10(2), 152, 10.3390/horticulturae10020152 (2024). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Liu, J. et al. A review of Cremastra appendiculata (D.Don) Makino as a traditional herbal medicine and its main components. Journal of Ethnopharmacology279, 114357, 10.1016/j.jep.2021.114357 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Chung, M. Y., Nason, J. D. & Chung, M. G. Implications of clonal structure for effective population size and genetic drift in a rare terrestrial orchid, Cremastra appendiculata. Conservation Biology18(6), 1515–1524, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00291.x (2004). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hur, S., Lee, Y. S., Yoo, H., Yang, J.-H. & Kim, T.-Y. Homoisoflavanone inhibits UVB-induced skin inflammation through reduced cyclooxygenase-2 expression and NF-κB nuclear localization. Journal of Dermatological Science59(3), 163–169, 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2010.07.001 (2010). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Yagame, T., Funabiki, E., Nagasawa, E., Fukiharu, T. & Iwase, K. Identification and symbiotic ability of Psathyrellaceae fungi isolated from a photosynthetic orchid, Cremastra appendiculata (Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany100(9), 1823–1830, 10.3732/ajb.1300099 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Suetsugu, K., Haraguchi, T. F. & Tayasu, I. Novel mycorrhizal cheating in a green orchid: Cremastra appendiculata depends on carbon from deadwood through fungal associations. New Phytologist235(1), 333–343, 10.1111/nph.17313 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Xiao, X. et al. Effectiveness of symbiotic fungus Coprinellus radians on seeds germination and seedlings development of Cremastra appendiculata (D.Don.) Makino (Orchidaceae). South African Journal of Botany174, 916–926, 10.1016/j.sajb.2024.09.056 (2024). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Pan, Z. et al. Enhancing seed germination of Cremastra appendiculata: Screening and identification of four new symbiotic fungi in the Psathyrellaceae family. Journal of Microbiology62, 671–682, 10.1007/s12275-024-00148-7 (2024). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Faisal, M., Seob, P. K., Kang, K. W. & Sivanesan, I. In vitro propagation of Cremastra appendiculata var. variabilis by asymbiotic seed germination. Horticulturae8(10), 926, 10.3390/horticulturae8100926 (2022). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Yang, N. et al. An efficient micropropagation protocol, chemical components, and hypoglycemic activity for Cremastra appendiculata (D. Don) Makino pseudobulbs. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant58, 213–224, 10.1007/s11627-021-10222-z (2022). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Gao, Y. et al. Mycorrhizal fungus Coprinellus disseminatus influences seed germination of the terrestrial orchid Cremastra appendiculata (D. Don) Makino. Scientia Horticulturae293, 110724, 10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110724 (2022). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Mao, S., Zhou, Y., Yuan, H., Lu, C. & Chang, H. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Cremastra appendiculata (Orchidaceae) revealed by next-generation sequencing and phylogenetic implication. Mitochondrial DNA Part B3(2), 1108–1109, 10.1080/23802359.2018.1516122 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Dong, W. et al. Molecular evolution of chloroplast genomes of orchid species: insights into phylogenetic relationship and adaptive evolution. International Journal of Molecular Sciences19(3), 716, 10.3390/ijms19030716 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Gao, Y., Ji, J., Zhang, Y., Yang, N. & Zhang, M. Biochemical and transcriptomic analyses of the symbiotic interaction between Cremastra appendiculata and the mycorrhizal fungus Coprinellus disseminatus. BMC Plant Biology22, 15, 10.1186/s12870-021-03388-6 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lv, X., Zhang, M., Li, X., Ye, R. & Wang, X. Transcriptome profiles reveal the crucial roles of auxin and cytokinin in the “shoot branching” of Cremastra appendiculata. International Journal of Molecular Sciences19(11), 3354, 10.3390/ijms19113354 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wang, J. et al. A draft genome of the medicinal plant Cremastra appendiculata (D. Don) provides insights into the colchicine biosynthetic pathway. Communications Biology5, 1294, 10.1038/s42003-022-04229-4 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Chen, Y. et al. SOAPnuke: a MapReduce acceleration-supported software for integrated quality control and preprocessing of high-throughput sequencing data. GigaScience7(1), 1–6, 10.1093/gigascience/gix120 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Marçais, G. & Kingsford, C. A fast, lock-free approach for efficient parallel counting of occurrences of k-mers. Bioinformatics27(6), 764–770, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr011 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ranallo-Benavidez, T. R., Jaron, K. S. & Schatz, M. C. GenomeScope 2.0 and Smudgeplot for reference-free profiling of polyploid genomes. Nature Communications11, 1432, 10.1038/s41467-020-14998-3 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Cheng, H., Concepcion, G. T., Feng, X., Zhang, H. & Li, H. Haplotype-resolved de novo assembly using phased assembly graphs with hifiasm. Nature Methods18, 170–175, 10.1038/s41592-020-01056-5 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Simão, F. A., Waterhouse, R. M., Ioannidis, P., Kriventseva, E. V. & Zdobnov, E. M. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics31(19), 3210–3212, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Durand, N. C. et al. Juicer provides a one-click system for analyzing loop-resolution Hi-C experiments. Cell Systems3(1), 95–98, 10.1016/j.cels.2016.07.002 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Dudchenko, O. et al. De novo assembly of the Aedes aegypti genome using Hi-C yields chromosome-length scaffolds. Science356(6333), 92–95, 10.1126/science.aal3327 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Durand, N. C. et al. Juicebox provides a visualization system for Hi-C contact maps with unlimited zoom. Cell Systems3(1), 99–101, 10.1016/j.cels.2015.07.012 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Benson, G. Tandem repeats finder: a program to analyze DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Research27(2), 573–580, 10.1093/nar/27.2.573 (1999). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Chen, N. Using RepeatMasker to identify repetitive elements in genomic sequences. Current Protocols in Bioinformatics, 4.10.11-14.10.14 (2004). [DOI] [PubMed]
- 33.Bao, W., Kojima, K. K. & Kohany, O. Repbase Update, a database of repetitive elements in eukaryotic genomes. Mobile DNA6, 11, 10.1186/s13100-015-0041-9 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Ellinghaus, D., Kurtz, S. & Willhoeft, U. LTRharvest, an efficient and flexible software for de novo detection of LTR retrotransposons. BMC Bioinformatics9, 18, 10.1186/1471-2105-9-18 (2008). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Flynna, J. M. et al. RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(17), 9451–9457, 10.1073/pnas.1921046117 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Jiang, L. et al. Haplotype-resolved genome assembly of Bletilla striata (Thunb.) Reichb.f. to elucidate medicinal value. The Plant Journal111(5), 1340–1353, 10.1111/tpj.15892 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Sun, Y. et al. The Cymbidium goeringii genome provides insight into organ development and adaptive evolution in orchids. Ornamental Plant Research1, 10, 10.48130/opr-2021-0010 (2021). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Fan, W. et al. High-quality Cymbidium mannii genome and multifaceted regulation of crassulacean acid metabolism in epiphytes. Plant Communications4(5), 100564, 10.1016/j.xplc.2023.100564 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Du, Z., Jin, Y., Yang, X., Xia, K. & Chen, Z. Multi-omics analyses and botanical perfumer hypothesis provide insights into the formation and maintenance of aromatic characteristics of Dendrobium loddigesii flowers. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry214, 108891, 10.1016/j.plaphy.2024.108891 (2024). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Li, D. et al. A high-quality chromosomal-level reference genome of Dendrobium nobile Lindl. provides new insights into the biosynthesis and accumulation of picrotoxane-type sesquiterpenoid alkaloids. Industrial Crops and Products211, 118243, 10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.118243 (2024). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Chen, S. et al. Improved de novo assembly of the achlorophyllous orchid Gastrodia elata. Frontiers in Genetics11, 580568, 10.3389/fgene.2020.580568 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Lim, A. H. et al. Genome assembly and chemogenomic profiling of National Flower of Singapore Papilionanthe Miss Joaquim ‘Agnes’ reveals metabolic pathways regulating floral traits. Communications Biology5, 967, 10.1038/s42003-022-03940-6 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Keilwagen, J., Hartung, F. & Grau, J. in Gene Prediction Vol. 1962 (ed. Kollmar, M.) Ch. 9 (Humana Press, 10.1007/978-1-4939-9173-0_9 2019). [DOI]
- 44.Stanke, M. et al. AUGUSTUS: ab initio prediction of alternative transcripts. Nucleic Acids Research34(S2), W435–W439, 10.1093/nar/gkl200 (2006). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Johnson, A. D. et al. SNAP: a web-based tool for identification and annotation of proxy SNPs using HapMap. Bioinformatics24(24), 2938–2939, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn564 (2008). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Kim, D., Paggi, J. M., Park, C., Bennett, C. & Salzberg, S. L. Graph-based genome alignment and genotyping with HISAT2 and HISAT-genotype. Nature Biotechnology37, 907–915, 10.1038/s41587-019-0201-4 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Pertea, M. et al. StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads. Nature Biotechnology33, 290–295, 10.1038/nbt.3122 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Haas, B. J. et al. Automated eukaryotic gene structure annotation using EVidenceModeler and the Program to Assemble Spliced Alignments. Genome Biology9(I), R7.1–R7.22, 10.1186/gb-2008-9-1-r7 (2008). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Haas, B. J. et al. Improving the Arabidopsis genome annotation using maximal transcript alignment assemblies. Nucleic Acids Research31(19), 5654–5666, 10.1093/nar/gkg770 (2003). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Blum, M. et al. InterPro: the protein sequence classification resource in 2025. Nucleic Acids Research53(D1), D444–D456, 10.1093/nar/gkae1082 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Kanehisa, M., Urumichi, M. F., Sato, Y., Matsuura, Y. & Ishiguro-Watanabe, M. KEGG: biological systems database as a model of the real world. Nucleic Acids Research53(D1), D672–D677, 10.1093/nar/gkae909 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Boutet, E., Lieberherr, D., Tognolli, M., Schneider, M. & Bairoch, A. in Plant Bioinformatics: Methods and Protocols Vol. 406 (ed. Edwards D.) Ch. 4 (Humana Press, 10.1007/978-1-59745-535-0_4 2007). [DOI]
- 53.Ashburner, M. et al. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics25(1), 25–29, 10.1038/75556 (2000). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Aleksander, S. A. et al. The Gene Ontology knowledgebase in 2023. Genetics224(1), iyad031, 10.1093/genetics/iyad031 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Ontiveros-Palacios, N. et al. Rfam 15: RNA families database in 2025. Nucleic Acids Research53(D1), D258–D267, 10.1093/nar/gkae1023 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Nawrocki, E. P. & Eddy, S. R. Infernal 1.1: 100-fold faster RNA homology searches. Bioinformatics29(22), 2933–2935, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt509 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Chan, P. P., Lin, B. Y., Mak, A. J. & Lowe, T. M. tRNAscan-SE 2.0: improved detection and functional classification of transfer RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Research49(16), 9077–9096, 10.1093/nar/gkab688 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRP691102 (2026).
- 59.NCBI GenBankhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.gca:GCA_058369495.1 (2026).
- 60.Zhang, S. et al. The GSA family in 2025: A broadened sharing platform for multi-omics and multimodal data. Genomics Proteomics & Bioinformatics23(4), qzaf072, 10.1093/gpbjnl/qzaf072 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Bao, Y. et al. Database Resources of the National Genomics Data Center, China National Center for Bioinformation in 2025. Nucleic Acids Research53(D1), D30–D44, 10.1093/nar/gkae978 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.NGDC Genome Sequence Archivehttps://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gsa/browse/CRA031683 (2026).
- 63.Ma, Y. et al. The updated Genome Warehouse: Enhancing data value, security, and usability to address data expansion. Genomics Proteomics & Bioinformatics23(1), qzaf010, 10.1093/gpbjnl/qzaf010 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.NGDC Genome WareHousehttps://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gwh/Assembly/GWHGWEK00000000.1 (2026).
- 65.Rhie, A., Walenz, B. P., Koren, S. & Phillippy, A. M. Merqury: reference-free quality, completeness, and phasing assessment for genome assemblies. Genome Biology21, 245, 10.1186/s13059-020-02134-9 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Li, K., Xu, P., Wang, J., Yi, X. & Jiao, Y. Identification of errors in draft genome assemblies at single-nucleotide resolution for quality assessment and improvement. Nature Communications14, 6556, 10.1038/s41467-023-42336-w (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Gurevich, A., Saveliev, V., Vyahhi, N. & Tesler, G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics29(8), 1072–1075, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt086 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Citations
- NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRP691102 (2026).
Data Availability Statement
The PacBio HiFi, Hi-C, and RNA-seq raw reads generated in this study are available in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive under accession SRP691102 and in the Genome Sequence Archive of the NGDC under accession CRA031683. The chromosome-level genome assembly is available in NCBI GenBank under accession GCA_058369495.1 and in the Genome Warehouse of the NGDC under accession GWHGWEK00000000.1.
All bioinformatics analyses in this research were performed using recognized community-standard software following protocols and guidelines provided by the respective software developers. The specific software versions and corresponding parameters have been exhaustively delineated in the Methods section. No custom code was developed or implemented for this research.
