Insight on Rosaceae Family with Genome Sequencing and Functional Genomics Perspective
Table 1
Genome sequencing of important commercial plants belongs to the Rosaceae family.
Common name
Sample name
Chr number
Genome size
Coverage (%)
Platform
Number of genes
Repetitive sequences (Mb)
Reference
Estimated (Mb)
Assembled (Mb)
Apple
Mallus x domestica “Golden Delicous”
2n=2x=34
742.3
603.9
81.3
BAC + 454
57,386
362.3
Velasco et al., 2010
Mallus x domestica “Golden Delicous” (Heterologous)
701.0
632.4
90.2
Illumina+ PacBio
53,922
382.0
Li et al., 2016
Mallus x domestica “Golden Delicous doubled-haploid”
651.0
649.7
99.8
Illumina+ PacBio
42,140
372.2
Daccord et al., 2017
Pear
Pyrus bretschneideri “Dangshansuli”
2n=2x=34
512.0
501.3
97.9
BAC-by-BAC + Illumina
42,812
240.2
Wu et al., 2013
Pyrus communis “Bartlett”
600.0
577.3
96.2
454
43,419
197.7
Chagné et al., 2014
Strawberry
Fragaria vesca ssp vesca acc. Hawaii 4
2n=2x=14
240.0
239.5
99.8
Illumina + 454 + SOLiD
33,264
49.8
Shulaev et al., 2010
Fragaria x ananassa “Reikou”
2n=8x=56
692.0
697.7
100.8
454 + Illumina
64,947
328.3
Hirakawa et al., 2014
Fragaria iinumae
2n=2x=14
221.0
199.6
90.3
26,411
63.2
Fragaria nipponica
208.0
206.5
99.3
21,540
52.5
Fragaria nubicola
202.0
203.7
100.8
21,053
49.9
Fragaria orientalis
349.3
214.2
61.3
17,239
56.2
Chinese plum and Japanese apricot
Prunus mume “Mei”
2n=2x=16
280.0
237
84.6
Illumina
31,390
106.8
Zhang et al., 2012
Peach
Prunus persica “Lovell” v1.0
2n=2x=16
265.0
224.6
84.7
BAC-by-BAC
27,852
84.41
Verde et al., 2013
Prunus persica “Lovell” v2.0
227.4
85.8
Illumina
26,873
-
Verde et al., 2017
Sweet cherry
Prunus avium “Santonishiki”
2n=2x=16
380.0
272.4
77.8
Illumina
43,349
119.4
Shirasawa et al., 2017
Rose
Rosa chinensis “Old Blush”
2n=2x=14
560.0
503.0
97.7
Illumina+ PacBio
36,377
341.5
Raymond et al., 2018
Rosa chinensis “Old Blush” (doubled haploid –“HapOB”)
568.0±9.0
512.0
90.1 ~ 96.1
Illumina+ PacBio
44,481
279.6
Saint-Oyant et al., 2018
Rosa multiflora
750
711
94.8
Illumina
67,380
417.2
Nakamura et al., 2018
The higher size of genome assembled than the estimated could be either due to limitation in the kmer abundance analysis or duplication occurring during the genome assembly of highly repetitive region.
