Stokstad, E. The new potato. Science 363, 574–577 (2019).
Google Scholar
Spooner, D. M., Ghislain, M., Simon, R., Jansky, S. H. & Gavrilenko, T. Systematics, diversity, genetics, and evolution of wild and cultivated potatoes. Bot. Rev. 80, 283–383 (2014).
Google Scholar
Zhang, C. et al. Genome design of hybrid potato. Cell 184, 3873–3883 (2021).
Google Scholar
The Potato Genome Sequencing Consortium. Genome sequence and analysis of the tuber crop potato. Nature 475, 189–195 (2011).
Google Scholar
Zhou, Q. et al. Haplotype-resolved genome analyses of a heterozygous diploid potato. Nat. Genet. 52, 1018–1023 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lian, Q. et al. Acquisition of deleterious mutations during potato polyploidization. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 61, 7–11 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bao, Z. et al. Genome architecture and tetrasomic inheritance of autotetraploid potato. Mol. Plant 15, 1211–1226 (2022).
Google Scholar
Jansky, S. H. et al. Reinventing potato as a diploid inbred line-based crop. Crop Sci. 56, 1412–1422 (2016).
Google Scholar
Zhang, C. et al. The genetic basis of inbreeding depression in potato. Nat. Genet. 51, 374–378 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wu, Y. et al. Phylogenomic discovery of deleterious mutations facilitates hybrid potato breeding. Cell 186, 2313–2328.e15 (2023).
Google Scholar
van Lieshout, N. et al. Solyntus, the new highly contiguous reference genome for potato (Solanum tuberosum). G3 10, 3489–3495 (2020).
Google Scholar
Freire, R. et al. Chromosome-scale reference genome assembly of a diploid potato clone derived from an elite variety. G3 11, jkab330 (2021).
Google Scholar
Tang, D. et al. Genome evolution and diversity of wild and cultivated potatoes. Nature 606, 535–541 (2022).
Google Scholar
Sun, H. et al. Chromosome-scale and haplotype-resolved genome assembly of a tetraploid potato cultivar. Nat. Genet. 54, 342–348 (2022).
Google Scholar
Ye, M. et al. Generation of self-compatible diploid potato by knockout of S-RNase. Nat. Plants 4, 651–654 (2018).
Google Scholar
Chun, S. & Fay, J. C. Identification of deleterious mutations within three human genomes. Genome Res. 19, 1553–1561 (2009).
Google Scholar
Marsden, C. D. et al. Bottlenecks and selective sweeps during domestication have increased deleterious genetic variation in dogs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 152–157 (2016).
Google Scholar
Liu, Q., Zhou, Y., Morrell, P. L. & Gaut, B. S. Deleterious variants in Asian rice and the potential cost of domestication. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 908–924 (2017).
Google Scholar
Zhang, X. et al. Haplotype-resolved genome assembly provides insights into evolutionary history of the tea plant Camellia sinensis. Nat. Genet. 53, 1250–1259 (2021).
Google Scholar
Jarvis, E. D. et al. Semi-automated assembly of high-quality diploid human reference genomes. Nature 611, 519–531 (2022).
Google Scholar
Schreiber, M., Jayakodi, M., Stein, N. & Mascher, M. Plant pangenomes for crop improvement, biodiversity and evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 25, 563–577 (2024).
Google Scholar
Hardigan, M. A. et al. Genome diversity of tuber-bearing Solanum uncovers complex evolutionary history and targets of domestication in the cultivated potato. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E9999–E10008 (2017).
Google Scholar
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. Bioinformatics 31, 3210–3212 (2015).
Google Scholar
Liao, W.-W. et al. A draft human pangenome reference. Nature 617, 312–324 (2023).
Google Scholar
Pham, G. M. et al. Construction of a chromosome-scale long-read reference genome assembly for potato. GigaScience 9, giaa100 (2020).
Google Scholar
Garrison, E. et al. Building pangenome graphs. Nat. Methods 21, 2008–2012 (2024).
Google Scholar
Hickey, G. et al. Pangenome graph construction from genome alignments with Minigraph-Cactus. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 663–673 (2024).
Google Scholar
Garrison, E. & Guarracino, A. Unbiased pangenome graphs. Bioinformatics 39, btac743 (2023).
Google Scholar
Gong, Z. et al. Repeatless and repeat-based centromeres in potato: implications for centromere evolution. Plant Cell 24, 3559–3574 (2012).
Google Scholar
Bozan, I. et al. Pangenome analyses reveal impact of transposable elements and ploidy on the evolution of potato species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2211117120 (2023).
Google Scholar
Domínguez, M. et al. The impact of transposable elements on tomato diversity. Nat. Commun. 11, 4058 (2020).
Google Scholar
Wicker, T. et al. A detailed look at 7 million years of genome evolution in a 439 kb contiguous sequence at the barley Hv‐eIF4E locus: recombination, rearrangements and repeats. Plant J. 41, 184–194 (2005).
Google Scholar
Balachandran, P. et al. Transposable element-mediated rearrangements are prevalent in human genomes. Nat. Commun. 13, 7115 (2022).
Google Scholar
Fang, Z. et al. Megabase-scale inversion polymorphism in the wild ancestor of maize. Genetics 191, 883–894 (2012).
Google Scholar
Berdan, E. L., Blanckaert, A., Butlin, R. K. & Bank, C. Deleterious mutation accumulation and the long-term fate of chromosomal inversions. PLoS Genet. 17, e1009411 (2021).
Google Scholar
Zhou, Y. et al. The population genetics of structural variants in grapevine domestication. Nat. Plants 5, 965–979 (2019).
Google Scholar
Roumeliotis, E., Kloosterman, B., Oortwijn, M., Visser, R. G. & Bachem, C. W. The PIN family of proteins in potato and their putative role in tuberization. Front. Plant Sci. 4, 524 (2013).
Google Scholar
Cho, S. K. et al. Polypyrimidine tract-binding proteins of potato mediate tuberization through an interaction with StBEL5 RNA. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 6835–6847 (2015).
Google Scholar
Wang, B. et al. De novo genome assembly and analyses of 12 founder inbred lines provide insights into maize heterosis. Nat. Genet. 55, 312–323 (2023).
Google Scholar
Xiao, H. et al. Adaptive and maladaptive introgression in grapevine domestication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2222041120 (2023).
Google Scholar
Bethke, P. C. et al. Diploid potatoes as a catalyst for change in the potato industry. Am. J. Potato Res. 99, 337–357 (2022).
Google Scholar
Mezmouk, S. & Ross-Ibarra, J. The pattern and distribution of deleterious mutations in maize. G3 4, 163–171 (2014).
Google Scholar
Li, Y. et al. Resequencing of 200 human exomes identifies an excess of low-frequency non-synonymous coding variants. Nat. Genet. 42, 969–972 (2010).
Google Scholar
Wang, N. et al. Structural variation and parallel evolution of apomixis in citrus during domestication and diversification. Natl Sci. Rev. 9, nwac114 (2022).
Google Scholar
Harcourt, B. E. Reflecting on the subject: a critique of the social influence conception of deterrence, the broken windows theory, and order-maintenance policing New York style. Mich. Law Rev. 97, 291 (1998).
Google Scholar
Morgan, A. P. et al. Structural variation shapes the landscape of recombination in mouse. Genetics 206, 603–619 (2017).
Google Scholar
Porubsky, D. et al. Recurrent inversion polymorphisms in humans associate with genetic instability and genomic disorders. Cell 185, 1986–2005 (2022).
Google Scholar
Rowan, B. A. et al. An ultra high-density Arabidopsis thaliana crossover map that refines the influences of structural variation and epigenetic features. Genetics 213, 771–787 (2019).
Google Scholar
Ramu, P. et al. Cassava haplotype map highlights fixation of deleterious mutations during clonal propagation. Nat. Genet. 49, 959–963 (2017).
Google Scholar
Jiao, Y. et al. Regulation of OsSPL14 by OsmiR156 defines ideal plant architecture in rice. Nat. Genet. 42, 541–544 (2010).
Google Scholar
Jiang, X. et al. Genomic features of meiotic crossovers in diploid potato. Hortic. Res. 10, uhad079 (2023).
Google Scholar
Hayes, B. J. et al. Potential approaches to create ultimate genotypes in crops and livestock. Nat. Genet. 56, 2310–2317 (2024).
Google Scholar
Filler-Hayut, S., Kniazev, K., Melamed-Bessudo, C. & Levy, A. A. Targeted inter-homologs recombination in Arabidopsis euchromatin and heterochromatin. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22, 12096 (2021).
Google Scholar
Schmidt, C., Schindele, P. & Puchta, H. From gene editing to genome engineering: restructuring plant chromosomes via CRISPR/Cas. Abiotech 1, 21–31 (2020).
Google Scholar
Eizenga, J. M. et al. Pangenome graphs. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 21, 139–162 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rakocevic, G. et al. Fast and accurate genomic analyses using genome graphs. Nat. Genet. 51, 354–362 (2019).
Google Scholar
Alonge, M. et al. Major impacts of widespread structural variation on gene expression and crop improvement in tomato. Cell 182, 145–161. e23 (2020).
Google Scholar
Leffler, E. M. et al. Resistance to malaria through structural variation of red blood cell invasion receptors. Science 356, eaam6393 (2017).
Google Scholar
Yan, H. et al. Pangenomic analysis identifies structural variation associated with heat tolerance in pearl millet. Nat. Genet. 55, 507–518 (2023).
Google Scholar
Conrad, D. F. et al. Origins and functional impact of copy number variation in the human genome. Nature 464, 704–712 (2010).
Google Scholar
Xue, J. R. et al. The functional and evolutionary impacts of human-specific deletions in conserved elements. Science 380, eabn2253 (2023).
Google Scholar
Li, H. et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).
Google Scholar
Burton, J. N. et al. Chromosome-scale scaffolding of de novo genome assemblies based on chromatin interactions. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1119–1125 (2013).
Google Scholar
Kaplan, N. & Dekker, J. High-throughput genome scaffolding from in vivo DNA interaction frequency. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1143–1147 (2013).
Google Scholar
Marçais, G. & Kingsford, C. A fast, lock-free approach for efficient parallel counting of occurrences of k-mers. Bioinformatics 27, 764–770 (2011).
Google Scholar
Ranallo-Benavidez, T. R., Jaron, K. S. & Schatz, M. C. GenomeScope 2.0 and Smudgeplot for reference-free profiling of polyploid genomes. Nat. Commun. 11, 1432 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cheng, H., Concepcion, G. T., Feng, X., Zhang, H. & Li, H. Haplotype-resolved de novo assembly using phased assembly graphs with hifiasm. Nat. Methods 18, 170–175 (2021).
Google Scholar
Dudchenko, O. et al. De novo assembly of the Aedes aegypti genome using Hi-C yields chromosome-length scaffolds. Science 356, 92–95 (2017).
Google Scholar
Durand, N. C. et al. Juicebox provides a visualization system for Hi-C contact maps with unlimited zoom. Cell Syst. 3, 99–101 (2016).
Google Scholar
Martin, M. et al. WhatsHap: fast and accurate read-based phasing. Preprint at BioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/085050 (2016).
Mapleson, D., Garcia Accinelli, G., Kettleborough, G., Wright, J. & Clavijo, B. J. KAT: a K-mer analysis toolkit to quality control NGS datasets and genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 33, 574–576 (2017).
Google Scholar
Ou, S. et al. Benchmarking transposable element annotation methods for creation of a streamlined, comprehensive pipeline. Genome Biol. 20, 275 (2019).
Google Scholar
Flynn, J. M. et al. RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 9451–9457 (2020).
Google Scholar
Delehelle, F., Cussat-Blanc, S., Alliot, J.-M., Luga, H. & Balaresque, P. ASGART: fast and parallel genome scale segmental duplications mapping. Bioinformatics 34, 2708–2714 (2018).
Google Scholar
Benson, G. Tandem repeats finder: a program to analyze DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 573–580 (1999).
Google Scholar
Kim, D., Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nat. Methods 12, 357–360 (2015).
Google Scholar
Pertea, M. et al. StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 290–295 (2015).
Google Scholar
Brůna, T., Hoff, K. J., Lomsadze, A., Stanke, M. & Borodovsky, M. BRAKER2: automatic eukaryotic genome annotation with GeneMark-EP+ and AUGUSTUS supported by a protein database. NAR Genomics Bioinformatics 3, lqaa108 (2021).
Google Scholar
Stanke, M. et al. AUGUSTUS: ab initio prediction of alternative transcripts. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, W435–W439 (2006).
Google Scholar
Lukashin, A. V. & Borodovsky, M. GeneMark. hmm: new solutions for gene finding. Nucleic Acids Res. 26, 1107–1115 (1998).
Google Scholar
The Tomato Genome Consortium. The tomato genome sequence provides insights into fleshy fruit evolution. Nature 485, 635–641 (2012).
Google Scholar
Li, W. & Godzik, A. Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 22, 1658–1659 (2006).
Google Scholar
Holt, C. & Yandell, M. MAKER2: an annotation pipeline and genome-database management tool for second-generation genome projects. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 491 (2011).
Google Scholar
Venturini, L., Caim, S., Kaithakottil, G. G., Mapleson, D. L. & Swarbreck, D. Leveraging multiple transcriptome assembly methods for improved gene structure annotation. GigaScience 7, giy093 (2018).
Google Scholar
Haas, B. J. et al. Improving the Arabidopsis genome annotation using maximal transcript alignment assemblies. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 5654–5666 (2003).
Google Scholar
Jones, P. et al. InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification. Bioinformatics 30, 1236–1240 (2014).
Google Scholar
Marco-Sola, S., Moure, J. C., Moreto, M. & Espinosa, A. Fast gap-affine pairwise alignment using the wavefront algorithm. Bioinformatics 37, 456–463 (2021).
Google Scholar
Guarracino, A., Heumos, S., Nahnsen, S., Prins, P. & Garrison, E. ODGI: understanding pangenome graphs. Bioinformatics 38, 3319–3326 (2022).
Google Scholar
Parmigiani, L., Garrison, E., Stoye, J., Marschall, T. & Doerr, D. Panacus: fast and exact pangenome growth and core size estimation. Bioinformatics https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btae720 (2024).
Zhou, Y. et al. Graph pangenome captures missing heritability and empowers tomato breeding. Nature 606, 527–534 (2022).
Google Scholar
Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 12, 59–60 (2015).
Google Scholar
Emms, D. M. & Kelly, S. OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biol. 20, 238 (2019).
Google Scholar
Nguyen, L.-T., Schmidt, H. A., Von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 268–274 (2015).
Google Scholar
Yu, G., Smith, D. K., Zhu, H., Guan, Y. & Lam, T. T. Y. ggtree: an R package for visualization and annotation of phylogenetic trees with their covariates and other associated data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 28–36 (2017).
Google Scholar
Lovell, J. T. et al. GENESPACE tracks regions of interest and gene copy number variation across multiple genomes. eLife 11, e78526 (2022).
Google Scholar
Li, H. New strategies to improve minimap2 alignment accuracy. Bioinformatics 37, 4572–4574 (2021).
Google Scholar
Goel, M., Sun, H., Jiao, W.-B. & Schneeberger, K. SyRI: finding genomic rearrangements and local sequence differences from whole-genome assemblies. Genome Biol. 20, 277 (2019).
Google Scholar
Danecek, P. et al. Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. GigaScience 10, giab008 (2021).
Google Scholar
Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575 (2007).
Google Scholar
Wickham, H. ggplot2. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 3, 180–185 (2011).
Google Scholar
Cheng, L. IPHs. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25846003.v8 (2024).
