Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Data logoLink to Scientific Data
. 2020 May 8;7:139. doi: 10.1038/s41597-020-0480-0

An improved high-quality genome assembly and annotation of Tibetan hulless barley

Xingquan Zeng 1,2,3,#, Tong Xu 4,#, Zhihao Ling 4,#, Yulin Wang 1,2,3,#, Xiangfeng Li 4, Shuqing Xu 5, Qijun Xu 1,2,3, Sang Zha 1,2,3, Wangmu Qimei 1,2,3, Yuzhen Basang 1,2,3, Jiabu Dunzhu 1,2,3, Mingzhai Yu 1,2,3, Hongjun Yuan 1,2,3, Tashi Nyima 1,3,✉
PMCID: PMC7210891  PMID: 32385314

Abstract

Hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare L. var. nudum) is a barley variety that has loose husk cover of the caryopses. Because of the ease in processing and edibility, hulless barley has been locally cultivated and used as human food. For example, in Tibetan Plateau, hulless barley is the staple food for human and essential livestock feed. Although the draft genome of hulless barley has been sequenced, the assembly remains fragmented. Here, we reported an improved high-quality assembly and annotation of the Tibetan hulless barley genome using more than 67X PacBio long-reads. The N50 contig length of the new assembly is at least more than 19 times larger than other available barley assemblies. The new genome assembly also showed high gene completeness and high collinearity of genome synteny with the previously reported barley genome. The new genome assembly and annotation will not only remove major hurdles in genetic analysis and breeding of hulless barley, but will also serve as a key resource for studying barley genomics and genetics.

Subject terms: Plant genetics, Next-generation sequencing

Measurement(s) RNA • transcriptome • DNA • genome • sequence_assembly • sequence feature annotation
Technology Type(s) RNA sequencing • DNA sequencing • sequence assembly process • sequence annotation
Sample Characteristic - Organism Hordeum vulgare
Open in a new tab

Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12162147

Background & Summary

Hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare L. var. nudum) is a monophyletically originated variety of barley that has loose husk cover of the caryopses1 (Fig. 1). While many domesticated barley varieties are hulled and are mainly used for brewing malt and animal feed, hulless barley has been cultivated on a small scale and used as human food because of the ease in processing and edibility1. Although the cultivation of hulless barley is widely distributed, the frequency decreases from east to west2. The most frequently cultivated area is the Tibetan plateau, e.g. Nepal and Tibet, where hulless barley accounts for more than 95% of domesticated barley and is the staple food for people and an important livestock feed. Recently, hulless barley is also increasingly attracting attention as a potential crop for the development of value-added products and multiple food applications3.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Morphology of a Tibetan hulless barley. These pictures show (a) seedling; (b) heading stage; (c) mature stage; (d) filling stage spike; (e) grain of a hulless barley cultivated in Tibet.

Obtaining genomic sequences is critical for efficient molecular breeding and understanding of the evolutionary history of crops. Recently, studies, including one from our own group, have made significant progress in sequencing the genomes of hulless barley. Using the short-read sequencing approach, the genomes of two hulless barley strains that were grown in Tibet were sequenced and assembled4,5. The results suggest that many stress-related genes, which were expanded in hulless barley, might have facilitated the adaptation to the high-altitude environment4 and may provide a useful genetic resource for improving barley. Furthermore, by sequencing a population of 437 accessions, a study also showed that the current Tibetan hulless barley cultivars were derived from eastern domesticated barley and were introduced to southern Tibet between 4,500 and 3,500 years ago6. However, due to its large genome size and rich in transposable element sequences (80.8–84%)4,7,8, the genome assemblies of hulless barley using short-read sequencing approach remain incomplete and fragmented. This constrains the molecular breeding in hulless barley and the use of hulless barley for food applications.

Here, using a long-read sequencing technique (Pacific Biosciences), we sequenced a Tibetan hulless barley cultivar (Lasa Goumang) that has been previously sequenced using short-read, in high coverage (>67X). Using both Pacbio long reads and available Illumina reads, we assembled a significantly improved genome, of which the N50 contig size reached ~1.56 Mb (Table 1). Based on this improved assembly, we re-annotated the protein-coding genes in hulless barley and anchored the scaffolds to a linkage map of the barley cv. Morex9. The improved genome assembly and annotations will not only serve as a key resource for exploring the economic and genetic values of hulless barley varieties, but will also advance researches in barley genomics and genetics.

Table 1.

Titetan hulless barley genome size estimation and assembly statistics in previous study.

H. vulgare L. var. nudum
Estimated genome size 4.48 Gb
Total size of assembled scaffolds, >200 bp 3.89 Gb
Total sequence length anchored to chromosomes 3.48 Gb
Percent of chromosomal sequences 89.41%
N50 length, scaffolds 242Kb
Longest scaffold 3.07 Mb
Total size of assembled contigs 3.64 Gb
Longest contig 276.95Kb
N50 length, contig 18.07Kb
GC content 44.00%
Repeat content 81.39%
Number of gene models 36,151
Open in a new tab

Methods

DNA isolation, libraries construction and sequencing

The seedlings were germinated from seeds of a Tibetan hulless barley (cultivar Lasa Goumang, NCBI BioSample ID SAMN09914874). Tissues were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored in the freezer until DNA extraction. DNA was extracted using the cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) method10. The quality of the extracted genomic DNA was checked using electrophoresis on 1% agarose gel and the concentration was quantified using a Qubit fluorometer (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA).

Single-molecule real-time (SMRT) long-reads sequencing was performed at NextOmics Technology Corporation (Wuhan, China) with a PacBio sequel sequencer (Pacific Biosciences, Menlo Park, CA, USA). The SMRT Bell library was prepared using a DNA Template Prep Kit (1.0). In total, six 20-kb SMRT Bell libraries were constructed. Genomic DNA (~10 μg) was mechanically sheared to fragments of approximately 20 kb using a Covaris g-TUBE. The fragment size distribution was assessed using a bioanalyzer 2100 12 K DNA Chip assay. A blunt-end ligation reaction followed by exonuclease treatment was conducted to generate the SMRT Bell template. The size-selection of SMRT Bell templates was performed using a BluePippin size-selection system (Sage Science) to enrich large fragments (>10 kb). The quality and quantity of size-selected libraries were assessed on a bioanalyzer12Kb DNA Chip (Agilent) and a Qubit fluorometer (Life Technologies), respectively. The SMRT bell libraries were prepared using the binding kit 2.0 (PacBio p/n 100-862-200) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The libraries were sequenced using a PacBio Sequel instrument on PacBio SMRT cells v2.0 (Pacific Biosciences, acquiring one movie of 360 min per SMRT cell). The MagBead loading (Pacific Biosciences) method was used to improve the enrichment of the larger fragments. In total, ~300 Gb subreads sequences (average length: 9,358 bp) were generated on 64 SMRT cells.

RNA isolation and Iso-Seq sequencing

For RNA samples, plants were grown in a climate chamber in the laboratory (Lhasa). Roots, stems and leaves were sampled seven weeks after germination. To have sufficient materials for each RNA sample, we pooled plant tissue from 10 plants. Samples were placed on dry ice during sample collection and stored in −80 °C freezer until RNA isolation. In total, five pooled samples (one root, two stem and two leaf samples) were collected. Samples were ground with liquid nitrogen and total RNA was extracted using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen) according to manufacturer’s protocol. RQ1 DNase (Promega) was used to remove DNA.

cDNA libraries were prepared using the ClontechSMARTer® cDNA synthesis kit according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. One μg total RNA was used for each of the five samples. Barcoded oligo dT was used to barcode samples. The cDNA products were purified with AMPure PB beads and quality control (QC) was performed on BioAnalyzer 2100 (Agilent). The purified cDNA libraries were pooled in an equal molar ratio. The pooled cDNA (~3.8 μg) was size fractionated using the Sage ELF system. Subsequent re-amplification was performed to yield four libraries (size of 1–2, 2–3, 3–6 and 5–10Kb) to minimize artifacts during large-scale amplification. The pooled PCR products were purified using AMPure PB beads. One to five μg of purified amplicons were subjected to Iso-Seq SMRT Bell library preparation (https://pacbio.secure.force.com/SamplePrep). A total of 17 SMRT cells were sequenced on the PacBio RS II platform using P6-C4 chemistry with 3–4 h movies. In total, 19.68 Gb sequence data (~1.5 million reads) were obtained (Table 2). The average subreads length was 4.0 kb and the average subreads quality was 0.9.

Table 2.

Iso-Seq library information and sequencing results.

Sample SRA Accession Number Platform Library type Tissue Insert size Polymerase bases (Gb) Subreads bases (Gb)
m170209_043156_42199 SRR9112621 PacBio Sequel II SMRT Bell root, stem and leaf mixed 1–2 kb 1.01 0.94
m170209_085125_42199 SRR9112620 root, stem and leaf mixed 1–2 kb 1.23 1.15
m170210_073652_42199 SRR9112625 root, stem and leaf mixed 1–2 kb 1.31 1.23
m170210_115552_42199 SRR9112624 root, stem and leaf mixed 1–2 kb 1.41 1.32
m170209_131022_42199 SRR9112619 root, stem and leaf mixed 2–3 kb 1.57 1.48
m170209_173334_42199 SRR9112618 root, stem and leaf mixed 2–3 kb 1.48 1.4
m170210_161505_42199 SRR9112623 root, stem and leaf mixed 2–3 kb 1.40 1.32
m170210_203418_42199 SRR9112622 root, stem and leaf mixed 2–3 kb 1.26 1.19
m170211_005331_42199 SRR9112627 root, stem and leaf mixed 3–6 kb 1.59 1.5
m170211_051244_42199 SRR9112626 root, stem and leaf mixed 3–6 kb 1.60 1.52
m170214_153228_42199 SRR9112612 root, stem and leaf mixed 3–6 kb 0.36 0.34
m170214_195529_42199 SRR9112611 root, stem and leaf mixed 3–6 kb 0.36 0.34
m170216_130225_42199 SRR9112614 root, stem and leaf mixed 3–6 kb 1.39 1.31
m170228_215450_42199 SRR9112613 root, stem and leaf mixed 5–10 kb 1.43 1.36
m170301_021333_42199 SRR9112616 root, stem and leaf mixed 5–10 kb 1.12 1.06
m170304_235542_42199 SRR9112615 root, stem and leaf mixed 5–10 kb 1.25 1.19
m170305_041614_42199 SRR9112617 root, stem and leaf mixed 5–10 kb 1.10 1.04
Total 20.87 19.67
Open in a new tab

Genome assembly

In our assembly workflow, raw bam files from PacBio Sequel were first converted into subreads in fasta format using the PacBio software BAM2fastx. Then we used the falcon package (https://github.com/PacificBiosciences/falcon) to construct the primary assembly. Error correction was performed using an overlap-based strategy and the error-corrected reads were used to construct the contigs (parameters: length_cutoff = 5000; length_cutoff_pr = 10000). To correct errors in the primary assembly, we used the arrow pipeline from the SMRT link 4 toolkit to polish the genome (https://www.pacb.com/products-and-services/analytical-software/smrt-analysis/). The PacBio reads were aligned to the primary assembly using pbalign and variantCaller was used to call variants.

SSPACE11 was used to construct scaffolds from contigs. First, we aligned previously sequenced Illumina mate-pair libraries (20 kb and 40Kb fragment long)4 to the assembled contigs using bowtie v1.1.212 and constructed scaffolds with SSPACE-STANDARD-3.0. Second, we used PacBio long-reads to further improve the scaffolding using SSPACE-LongRead13. After scaffolding, the assembly contains 1,856 scaffolds, with a N50 contig size of 1.56 Mb and an N50 scaffold size of 4.0 Mb. The assembled genome size is 4.0 Gb (Table 3).

Table 3.

Comparison of the new genome with previously published assemblies of the Tibetan hulless barley genome.

This study Zeng et al.4 Dai et al.5 cv. Morex8
Sequenced genome size (Gb) 4.00 3.89 3.73 4.58
Contig N50 (Kb) 1,563.00 18.07 5.94 79.0
Scaffold N50 (Kb) 4,006.00 242.00 171.1 1,900.00
Repeat proportion (%) 87.48 81.39 NA 80.80
Annotated protein-coding genes 40,457* 36,151 46,787 39,734*
Open in a new tab

*Only refer to high confident protein-coding genes.

While the genome size of barley cv. Morex is ~5.1 Gb9, our previous work has suggested that the genome size of Tibetan hulless barley is ~4.5 Gb using k-mer analysis4 (Table 1). However, it is well-known that genome size estimation from both k-mer approach and flow cytometry can have substantial standard deviations (e.g., 10%)14,15. To draw concrete conclusion on genome size differences between hulless barley and cv. Morex, additional experiments are required. However, this is beyond the scope of this study.

We further generated pseudochromosomes using the assembled scaffolds and linkage map of barley cv. Morex9. We used blastn to map the marker sequences of cv. Morex genome to the scaffolds. Only uniquely mapped markers with coverage greater than 0.8 and identity greater than 0.95 were considered. To anchor the scaffolds to pseudochromosomes, ALLMAPS16 was used (Fig. 2a). The synteny comparison between the newly assembled Tibetan hulless barley and barley cv. Morex (Fig. 3a) was performed using CoGe platform17 (https://genomevolution.org/coge/).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

The workflows of genome assembly and annotation used in this study. (a) Genome assembly pipeline; (b) Protein-coding gene annotation pipeline. Software and tools were indicated at lines, data and database information were shown in rectangles.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Genome comparison between Tibetan hulless barley and barley cv. Morex. (a) The plot shows the LAST alignments of predicted protein-coding genes in barley cv. Morex assembly and Tibetan hulless barley assembly. (b–d) Dot plots show the MUMMER alignments of Tibetan hulless barley scaffolds and assembled barley cv. Morex bacterial artificial chromosome sequences. Different coverages were shown in B (65%), C (85%) and D (99.9%). The differences can be due to either true sequence divergences or assembly errors.

Repetitive sequences annotation

Repetitive DNA sequences are highly abundant in many organisms and their variations in abundancy resulted in remarkable genome size variations in plant18. In many Gramineae crop plants, repetitive elements represent more than 80% of their genome8,19,20. Repetitive elements can be classified as simple repeats and transposable elements (TE). Using tandem repeats finder21, we annotated ~155 Mb (3.89%) sequences as simple repeats. To annotate TE, we used both homology-based and de novo TE annotation tools: RepeatMasker22, RepeatProteinMask22, RepeatModeler (http://www.repeatmasker.org/RepeatModeler/) and LTR_FINDER23. For RepeatMasker, Repbase 21.0124 was used. In total, ~87.5% of the assembled genome were identified as TE (Table 4).

Table 4.

Repetitive element annotation statistics.

TE class TE order TE family cv. Morex Tibetan hulless barley (this study)
Class I: retrotransposon LTR retrotransposon Copia 22.3 23.3
Gypsy 44.2 46.6
unclassified LTR 0.2 0.3
non-LTR retrotransposon LINE 1.3 1.3
SINE 0 0
Sum 68 71.5
Class II: DNA Transposon DNA Transposon super-families 6.5 6.1
Helitron 0.03 0.04
other DNA transposon 1.6 1.7
Sum 7.1 7.8
Unclassified 8 8.1
Total 83.1 87.5
Open in a new tab

Protein-coding gene prediction

For the annotation of protein-coding genes, we used a previously established gene annotation pipeline (Fig. 2b) with minor modifications4. For de novo gene prediction, we first extracted the full-length transcripts from the Iso-Seq data using SMRTLINK. In total, 39,442 full-length transcripts were obtained and were subsequently aligned to the assembled genome using GMAP25. Among the 38,013 aligned transcripts, we removed all transcripts that had coverage less than 0.9 or sequence identity less than 0.85. This resulted in 14,099 high-quality full-length transcripts, which were used for open reading frame (ORF) prediction by TransDecoder (https://github.com/TransDecoder). In total, 13,936 (98.8%) transcripts contained at least one open reading frame (ORF) that is larger than 50 amino acids. These ORF containing transcripts were then assigned to 9,360 genes, which were considered as authentic genes. The authentic genes were then used for training the gene prediction models using AUGUSTUS v3.2.326. Based on the trained models, AUGUSTUS predicted 128,400 putative genes.

For homology based gene prediction, we used the protein sequences of seven monocot species (Triticum urartu (progenitor of wheat A genome)20, Triticum tauscii (progenitor of wheat D genome)27, Brachy podiumdistachyon28, Hordeum vulgare8, Oryza sativa29, Sorghum bicolor30 and Zea mays31) from public databases. All protein sequences were aligned to the hulless barley genome using tblastn32. The gene structure was predicted using GeneWise33 with the input protein sequence as reference.

To provide further evidence for evaluating the predicted gene models, we assembled the transcriptome using available RNA-seq Illumina short-reads from different libraries34. The transcriptome was assembled using both reference-guided approach (mapping: hisat235, assembly: stringtie36,37) and de novo approach (Trinity pipeline38). The reference-guided approach resulted in 47,490 transcripts and the de novo approach resulted in 722,803 transcripts.

The full-length transcripts from Iso-Seq, assembled transcripts from short-reads were used as evidence to evaluate the predicted gene models using EVidenceModeler39. For the data integration, evidence from different sources was assigned to different weight parameters: 20 for Iso-Seq assembly, 8 for short-reads assembly, 5 for homology-based prediction, 2 for AUGUSTUS gene prediction. In total, 129,269 transcripts were obtained, and the structural optimization was performed using PASA. We removed transcripts that either do not show any homology to sequences in nr or uniport database (blast results with identity > = 50% and coverage > = 50%) or have no protein sequences containing any Pfam40 domain (hmmer results with e-value < = 1e-5). For each gene, only the transcript with the longest protein sequences was kept. The tandem duplicated genes were identified using MCScanX. Genes (4,530) that contain large TE sequences (90% coverage) were discarded. The pipeline generated 61,303 genes.

We further classified these genes into high-confidence (HC) genes (40,457), which are likely true protein-coding genes, and less reliable low-confidence (LC) genes (20,846), which potentially are fragmented genes, pseudogenes and/or non-coding genes. This was done in a two-step procedure as described previously8.

We annotated putative functions of the 61,303 protein sequences using public databases, including nr, KEGG41, SwissProt42, Trembl42, GO43, PFAM40, and InterPro44. Blastp was used to compare the predicted protein sequences with the protein databases(e-value < = 1e-5). Blast2GO45 was used to annotate the GO terms using nr database (downloaded in December 2017) with default parameters. The protein domains were annotated using PfamScan46 and InterProScan47 based on InterPro protein databases, including CATHGene3D48, HAMAP49, PANTHER50, PIRSF51, PRINTS52, ProDom53, PROSITE54, SMART55, SUPERFAMILY56 and TIGRFAMs57.

Non-coding gene prediction

tRNAs were annotated using tRNAscan-SE v1.3.158 and rRNAs were annotated using blastn with the rRNA sequences from Arabidopsis thaliana and Oryza sativa (5S rRNA: AJ307354, 5.8S rRNA: AJ232900, 18S rRNA: X16077, 28S rRNA: AH001750). In addition, we also used INFERNAL to predict the miRNA and snRNA.

Data Records

The genomic Pacbio sequencing data (SRS3725794) and Iso-Seq sequencing data (SRS4809149) are available in NCBI Sequence Read Archive under SRP15912959. The available Illumina genome sequencing data that was deposited under SRP0550424,60 was used in our genome assembly and validation processes. The final genome assembly and annotation was deposited at NCBI GenBank under SDOW0000000061 and NCBI Assembly under GCA_004114815.162. The previously generated RNA sequencing data (deposited in NCBI’s Sequence Read Archive under SRP07487063) was used in our genome annotation steps. All the files in this project, such as the assembled scaffolds, repeat annotation, gene predictions and gene function annotations were uploaded to figshare64.

Technical Validation

We evaluated the quality of the new assembly using three independent approaches. First, we mapped 682.57 Gb previously generated genomic Illumina paired-end reads4,60 to the assembled genome. Overall, ~99.9% of paired-end reads were mapped to the genome concordantly. Second, using the mapped short reads, we estimated the quality value (QV) of the assembly using a previously described method65 in which erroneous bases in the genome assembly were identified based on the variant calling software Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK)66. The estimated base pair error rate is 6.3E-06, suggesting high accuracy of the assembly at base-pair level. Third, we mapped available RNA-seq Illumina reads to the new assembly34 using bowtie2 (parameters:--sensitive --score-min L,0,-0.1 -k 200 --no-discordant --gbar 99999999 --dpad 0 -p 24 --no-mixed -X 1000 --mp 1,1 -I 1 --np 1). The mapping rate with the new assembly (more than 73.6%) is more than 10% higher than the previous assembly. Fourth, we also mapped the PacBio long reads to the new assembly using blasr (parameters: -m 4 --minMatch 8 --minPctIdentity 70 --bestn 1 --nCandidates 20 --maxScore -500). Overall, 91.2% PacBio long-reads can be mapped back to the assembly. Fifth, we downloaded the assembled bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) sequences from barley cv. Morex67 and mapped them back to the new hulless barley assembly using mummer68 (Fig. 3b–d). Among 299 BACs that were larger than 200 kb and can be mapped back to barley cv. Morex, 74.6% showed high collinearity with the new hulless barley assembly (coverage greater than 60%). Sixth, we also used BUSCO69 to assess the genome completeness. Among 1,440 conserved eukaryotic core genes, 1,378 (95.7%) were complete, 15 were fragmented and 47 were missing in the hulless barley genome assembly. Together, the results suggested that the newly assembled hulless barley genome is of high quality and will serve as a key resource for future research in barley genetics and genomics.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the following funding sources: the Tibet Autonomous Region Financial Special Fund 2017CZZX001, 2017CZZX002, and the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research (STEP) program (2019QZKK0502). We acknowledge Zuoyi Jian for helping on the genome assembly, Hao Tang for developing genome annotation pipeline and Zhen Zeng for annotating repetitive sequences. We are grateful to the help from Zhenhua Zhuang and Jie Li during project development, and Martin Schäfer for the proof reading. We thank NextOmics and BGI-Shenzhen for sequencing supports.

Author contributions

Project coordination: X.Z., T.X., Y.W., Z.L., S.X. and N.T.; Sampling and experimentation: X.Z., Y.W., H.Y., Q.X., S.Z., W.Q., Y.B., J.D. and M.Y.; Supervision on genome assembly, genome annotation: T.X.; Data analysis: T.X., S.X., X.Z., Y.W., H.Y., Q.X., S.Z., W.Q., Y.B., J.D. and M.Y.; Data submission: T.X.; Writing: T.X., H.Y. and S.X. All authors read and commented on the manuscript.

Code availability

The software mentioned in methods section are described blow.

1) falcon: version 1.2.4, parameters: (length_cutoff=5000, length_cutoff_pr=10000);

2) pbalign: contained in SMRT Link 4 toolkit, parameters:(--algorithm=blasr);

3) variantCaller: contained in SMRT Link 4 toolkit, parameters:(--algorithm=arrow);

4) bowtie: verion 1.1.2, default parameters;

5) SSPACE-STANDARD: version 3.0, parameters:(-p 1 -g 2);

6) SSPACE-LongRead: version 1-1, default parameters;

7) blasr: version 1.3.1.121193, default parameters;

8) GATK: version 4.0.0.0, default parameters;

9) nucmer: contained in mummer version 4.0.0beta2, default parameters;

10) BUSCO: version 3, parameters:(-l embryophyta_odb9);

11) Tandem repeats finder: version 409, default parameters;

12) RepeatMasker: version open-4.0.7, parameters: (-nolow -no_is -norna -engine ncbi -parallel 1);

13) RepeatProteinMask: version open-4.0.7, parameters:(-engine ncbi -noLowSimple -pvalue 0.0001);

14) RepeatModeler: version open-1.0.11, parameters:(-engine ncbi -pa 9);

15) ltr_finder: version 1.06, parameters:(-w 2);

16) GMAP: version 2017-05-08, parameters:(-z sense_force -f samse -n 0);

17) TransDecoder: version 4.0.1, default parameters;

18) augustus: version 3.2.3, default parameters;

19) tblastn: version 2.6.0+, parameters:(-evalue 1e-5 -seg no);

20) GeneWise: version 2.4.1, default parameters;

21) hisat2: version 2.1.0, parameters:(--dta --no-discordant --no-mixed);

22) StringTie: version 1.2.4, default parameters;

23) EVidenceModeler: version 1.1.1, parameters:(--weights:PROTEIN GeneWise:5, TRANSCRIPT StringTie:8, ABINITIO_PREDICTION AUGUSTUS:2, OTHER_PREDICTION transdecoder:20);

24) Trinity: version 2.4.0, parameters: (--group_pairs_distance 500 --path_reinforcement_distance 80 --min_glue 3 --min_kmer_cov 3 --min_contig_length 100 --KMER_SIZE 25 --bflyHeapSpaceInit 1G --bflyHeapSpaceMax 4G --bfly_opts “-V 5 --edge-thr=0.1 --stderr”);

25) PASA: version 2.1.0, default parameters;

26) MCScanX: latest version, default parameters;

27) tRNAscan-SE: version 1.3.1, default parameters; 28) infernal: version 1.1.1, default parameters.

28) tRNAscan-SE: version 1.3.1, default parameters; 28) infernal: version 1.1.1, default parameters.

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: Xingquan Zeng, Tong Xu, Zhihao Ling, Yulin Wang.

References

  • 1.Taketa S, et al. Monophyletic origin of naked barley inferred from molecular analyses of a marker closely linked to the naked caryopsis gene (nud) Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2004;108:1236–1242. doi: 10.1007/s00122-003-1560-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zeng X, et al. Origin and evolution of qingke barley in Tibet. Nature Communications. 2018;9:5433. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07920-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Izydorczyk MS, Chornick TL, Paulley FG, Edwards NM, Dexter JE. Physicochemical properties of hull-less barley fibre-rich fractions varying in particle size and their potential as functional ingredients in two-layer flat bread. Journal of food science and technology. 2008;108:561–570. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zeng X, et al. The draft genome of Tibetan hulless barley reveals adaptive patterns to the high stressful Tibetan Plateau. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2015;112:1095–1100. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423628112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dai F, et al. Assembly and analysis of a qingke reference genome demonstrate its close genetic relation to modern cultivated barley. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2018;16:760–770. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fu DX, Ruan RW, Dai XM, Liu YM. A study on ancient barley, wheat and millet discovered at Changguo in Tibet. Acta Agronomica sinica. 2000;26:392–398. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mayer K, et al. A physical, genetic and functional sequence assembly of the barley genome. Nature. 2012;491:711–716. doi: 10.1038/nature11543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mascher M, et al. A chromosome conformation capture ordered sequence of the barley genome. Nature. 2017;544:427–433. doi: 10.1038/nature22043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mascher M, et al. Anchoring and ordering NGS contig assemblies by population sequencing (POPSEQ) The Plant Journal. 2013;76:718–727. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rogers, S. O. & Bendich, A. J. In Plant Molecular Biology Manual (eds. Stanton B. Gelvin, Robbert A. Schilperoort & Desh Pal S. Verma) 73–83 (Springer Netherlands, 1989).
  • 11.Boetzer M, Henkel CV, Jansen HJ, Butler D, Pirovano W. Scaffolding pre-assembled contigs using SSPACE. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:578–579. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Langmead, B. Aligning short sequencing reads with Bowtie. Current protocols in bioinformatics, Chapter 11, Unit 11.7 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 13.Boetzer M, Pirovano W. SSPACE-LongRead: scaffolding bacterial draft genomes using long read sequence information. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15:211. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.He K, Lin K, Wang G, Li F. Genome sizes of nine insect species determined by flow cytometry and k-mer analysis. Frontiers in physiology. 2016;7:569. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2016.00569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Guo LT, et al. Flow cytometry and K-mer analysis estimates of the genome sizes of Bemisia tabaci B and Q (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) Frontiers in physiology. 2015;6:144. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tang H, et al. ALLMAPS: robust scaffold ordering based on multiple maps. Genome Biology. 2015;16:3. doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0573-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lyons E, Freeling M. How to usefully compare homologous plant genes and chromosomes as DNA sequences. The Plant Journal. 2008;53:661–673. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2007.03326.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Paterson AH. Leafing through the genomes of our major crop plants: strategies for capturing unique information. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2006;7:174–184. doi: 10.1038/nrg1806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Schnable PS, et al. The B73 maize genome: complexity, diversity, and dynamics. Science. 2009;326:1112–1115. doi: 10.1126/science.1178534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ling HQ, et al. Genome sequence of the progenitor of wheat A subgenome Triticum urartu. Nature. 2018;557:424–428. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0108-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Benson G. Tandem repeats finder: a program to analyze DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Research. 1999;27:573–580. doi: 10.1093/nar/27.2.573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tarailo-Graovac M, Chen N. Using RepeatMasker to identify repetitive elements in genomic sequences. Current protocols in bioinformatics. 2009;25:4.10.1–14.10.14. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi0410s25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Xu Z, Wang H. LTR_FINDER: an efficient tool for the prediction of full-length LTR retrotransposons. Nucleic Acids Research. 2007;35:W265–W268. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bao W, Kojima KK, Kohany O. Repbase Update, a database of repetitive elements in eukaryotic genomes. Mobile DNA. 2015;6:11. doi: 10.1186/s13100-015-0041-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wu TD, Watanabe CK. GMAP: a genomic mapping and alignment program for mRNA and EST sequences. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:1859–1875. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Stanke M, Waack S. Gene prediction with a hidden Markov model and a new intron submodel. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:ii215–ii225. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg1080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Luo MC, et al. Genome sequence of the progenitor of the wheat D genome Aegilops tauschii. Nature. 2017;551:498–502. doi: 10.1038/nature24486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Initiative IB. Genome sequencing and analysis of the model grass Brachypodium distachyon. Nature. 2010;463:763–768. doi: 10.1038/nature08747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Du H, et al. Sequencing and de novo assembly of a near complete indica rice genome. Nature Communications. 2017;8:15324. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.McCormick RF, et al. The Sorghum bicolor reference genome: improved assembly, gene annotations, a transcriptome atlas, and signatures of genome organization. The Plant Journal. 2018;93:338–354. doi: 10.1111/tpj.13781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jiao Y, et al. Improved maize reference genome with single-molecule technologies. Nature. 2017;546:524–527. doi: 10.1038/nature22971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of molecular biology. 1990;215:403–410. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Birney E, Clamp M, Durbin R. GeneWise and Genomewise. Genome Research. 2004;14:988–995. doi: 10.1101/gr.1865504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wei Z, et al. Comparative transcriptome analysis revealed genes commonly responsive to varied nitrate stress in leaves of Tibetan hulless barley. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7:1067. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kim D, Langmead B, Salzberg SL. HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nature Methods. 2015;12:357–360. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pertea M, et al. StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads. Nature Biotechnology. 2015;33:290–295. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pertea M, Kim D, Pertea GM, Leek JT, Salzberg SL. Transcript-level expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with HISAT, StringTie and Ballgown. Nature Protocols. 2016;11:1650–1667. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2016.095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Grabherr M, et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nature Biotechnology. 2011;29:644–652. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1883. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Haas BJ, et al. Automated eukaryotic gene structure annotation using EVidenceModeler and the Program to Assemble Spliced Alignments. Genome Biology. 2008;9:R7. doi: 10.1186/gb-2008-9-1-r7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bateman A, et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Research. 2004;32:D138–D141. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kanehisa M, Goto S, Sato Y, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. KEGG for integration and interpretation of large-scale molecular data sets. Nucleic Acids Research. 2012;40:D109–D114. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Boeckmann B, et al. The SWISS-PROT protein knowledgebase and its supplement TrEMBL in 2003. Nucleic Acids Research. 2003;31:365–370. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ashburner M, et al. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics. 2000;25:25–29. doi: 10.1038/75556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mitchell A, et al. The InterPro protein families database: the classification resource after 15 years. Nucleic Acids Research. 2015;43:D213–D221. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Conesa, A. & Gotz, S. Blast2GO: a comprehensive suite for functional analysis in plant genomics. International Journal of Plant Genomics 2008, 619832, 12 (2008). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 46.Mistry J, Bateman A, Finn RD. Predicting active site residue annotations in the Pfam database. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8:298. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Jones P, et al. InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1236–1240. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lees JG, et al. Gene3D: multi-domain annotations for protein sequence and comparative genome analysis. Nucleic Acids Research. 2014;42:D240–D245. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Pedruzzi I, et al. HAMAP in 2013, new developments in the protein family classification and annotation system. Nucleic Acids Research. 2013;41:D584–D589. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Mi H, et al. PANTHER version 7: improved phylogenetic trees, orthologs and collaboration with the Gene Ontology Consortium. Nucleic Acids Research. 2010;38:D204–D210. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp1019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Nikolskaya AN, Arighi CN, Huang H, Barker WC, Wu CH. PIRSF family classification system for protein functional and evolutionary analysis. Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online. 2006;2:197–209. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Attwood, T.K. et al. The PRINTS database: a fine-grained protein sequence annotation and analysis resource–its status in 2012. Database: The Journal of Biological Databases and Curation2012, bas019 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 53.Bru C, et al. The ProDom database of protein domain families: more emphasis on 3D. Nucleic Acids Research. 2005;33:D212–D215. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Sigrist CJA, et al. New and continuing developments at PROSITE. Nucleic Acids Research. 2013;41:D344–D347. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Letunic I, Doerks T, Bork P. SMART 7: recent updates to the protein domain annotation resource. Nucleic Acids Research. 2011;40:D302–D305. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.de Lima Morais DA, et al. SUPERFAMILY 1.75 including a domain-centric gene ontology method. Nucleic Acids Research. 2011;39:D427–D434. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq1130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Haft DH, et al. TIGRFAMs and genome properties in 2013. Nucleic Acids Research. 2013;41:D387–D395. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Research. 1997;25:955–964. doi: 10.1093/nar/25.5.955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.2018. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. SRP159129
  • 60.2015. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. SRP055042
  • 61.Zeng X, 2019. Hordeum vulgare cultivar Lasa Goumang, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. Genbank. SDOW00000000
  • 62.2019. NCBI Assembly. GCA_004114815.1
  • 63.2016. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. SRP074870
  • 64.Xu T, 2019. An improved high-quality genome assembly and annotation of Tibetan hulless barley. Figshare. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 65.Xia M, et al. Improved de novo genome assembly and analysis of the Chinese cucurbit Siraitia grosvenorii, also known as monk fruit or luo-han-guo. Gigascience. 2018;7:6. doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giy067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Heldenbrand, J. R. et al. Performance benchmarking of GATK3.8 and GATK4. Preprint at, 10.1101/348565v1 (2018).
  • 67.IBSC. (ed IPK Gatersleben) (Plant Genomics and Phenomics Research Data Repository (PGP), IPK Gatersleben, 2016).
  • 68.Kurtz S, et al. Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes. Genome Biology. 2004;5:R12. doi: 10.1186/gb-2004-5-2-r12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Simao FA, Waterhouse RM, Ioannidis P, Kriventseva EV, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:3210–3212. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Citations

  1. 2018. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. SRP159129
  2. 2015. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. SRP055042
  3. Zeng X, 2019. Hordeum vulgare cultivar Lasa Goumang, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. Genbank. SDOW00000000
  4. 2019. NCBI Assembly. GCA_004114815.1
  5. 2016. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. SRP074870
  6. Xu T, 2019. An improved high-quality genome assembly and annotation of Tibetan hulless barley. Figshare. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Data Availability Statement

The software mentioned in methods section are described blow.

1) falcon: version 1.2.4, parameters: (length_cutoff=5000, length_cutoff_pr=10000);

2) pbalign: contained in SMRT Link 4 toolkit, parameters:(--algorithm=blasr);

3) variantCaller: contained in SMRT Link 4 toolkit, parameters:(--algorithm=arrow);

4) bowtie: verion 1.1.2, default parameters;

5) SSPACE-STANDARD: version 3.0, parameters:(-p 1 -g 2);

6) SSPACE-LongRead: version 1-1, default parameters;

7) blasr: version 1.3.1.121193, default parameters;

8) GATK: version 4.0.0.0, default parameters;

9) nucmer: contained in mummer version 4.0.0beta2, default parameters;

10) BUSCO: version 3, parameters:(-l embryophyta_odb9);

11) Tandem repeats finder: version 409, default parameters;

12) RepeatMasker: version open-4.0.7, parameters: (-nolow -no_is -norna -engine ncbi -parallel 1);

13) RepeatProteinMask: version open-4.0.7, parameters:(-engine ncbi -noLowSimple -pvalue 0.0001);

14) RepeatModeler: version open-1.0.11, parameters:(-engine ncbi -pa 9);

15) ltr_finder: version 1.06, parameters:(-w 2);

16) GMAP: version 2017-05-08, parameters:(-z sense_force -f samse -n 0);

17) TransDecoder: version 4.0.1, default parameters;

18) augustus: version 3.2.3, default parameters;

19) tblastn: version 2.6.0+, parameters:(-evalue 1e-5 -seg no);

20) GeneWise: version 2.4.1, default parameters;

21) hisat2: version 2.1.0, parameters:(--dta --no-discordant --no-mixed);

22) StringTie: version 1.2.4, default parameters;

23) EVidenceModeler: version 1.1.1, parameters:(--weights:PROTEIN GeneWise:5, TRANSCRIPT StringTie:8, ABINITIO_PREDICTION AUGUSTUS:2, OTHER_PREDICTION transdecoder:20);

24) Trinity: version 2.4.0, parameters: (--group_pairs_distance 500 --path_reinforcement_distance 80 --min_glue 3 --min_kmer_cov 3 --min_contig_length 100 --KMER_SIZE 25 --bflyHeapSpaceInit 1G --bflyHeapSpaceMax 4G --bfly_opts “-V 5 --edge-thr=0.1 --stderr”);

25) PASA: version 2.1.0, default parameters;

26) MCScanX: latest version, default parameters;

27) tRNAscan-SE: version 1.3.1, default parameters; 28) infernal: version 1.1.1, default parameters.

28) tRNAscan-SE: version 1.3.1, default parameters; 28) infernal: version 1.1.1, default parameters.

Articles from Scientific Data are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES