Gene clustering and copy number variation in alkaloid metabolic pathways of opium poppy

Genes in plant secondary metabolic pathways enable biosynthesis of a range of medically and industrially important compounds, and are often clustered on chromosomes. Here, we study genomic clustering in the benzylisoquinoline alkaloid (BIA) pathway in opium poppy (Papaver somniferum), exploring relationships between gene expression, copy number variation, and metabolite production. We use Hi-C to improve the existing draft genome assembly, yielding chromosome-scale scaffolds that include 35 previously unanchored BIA genes. We find that co-expression of BIA genes increases within clusters and identify candidates with unknown function based on clustering and covariation in expression and alkaloid production. Copy number variation in critical BIA genes correlates with stark differences in alkaloid production, linking noscapine production with an 11-gene deletion, and increased thebaine/decreased morphine production with deletion of a T6ODM cluster. Our results show that the opium poppy genome is still dynamically evolving in ways that contribute to medically and industrially important phenotypes.

For all statistical analyses, confirm that the following items are present in the figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section.

n/a Confirmed
The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a discrete number and unit of measurement A statement on whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedly The statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one-or two-sided Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section.
A description of all covariates tested A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons A full description of the statistical parameters including central tendency (e.g. means) or other basic estimates (e.g. regression coefficient) AND variation (e.g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals) For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e.g. F, t, r) with confidence intervals, effect sizes, degrees of freedom and P value noted Give P values as exact values whenever suitable.

For Bayesian analysis, information on the choice of priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo settings
For hierarchical and complex designs, identification of the appropriate level for tests and full reporting of outcomes Estimates of effect sizes (e.g. Cohen's d, Pearson's r), indicating how they were calculated Our web collection on statistics for biologists contains articles on many of the points above. For manuscripts utilizing custom algorithms or software that are central to the research but not yet described in published literature, software must be made available to editors/reviewers. We strongly encourage code deposition in a community repository (e.g. GitHub). See the Nature Research guidelines for submitting code & software for further information.

Data
Policy information about availability of data All manuscripts must include a data availability statement. This statement should provide the following information, where applicable: -Accession codes, unique identifiers, or web links for publicly available datasets -A list of figures that have associated raw data -A description of any restrictions on data availability Field-specific reporting Please select the one below that is the best fit for your research. If you are not sure, read the appropriate sections before making your selection.

Life sciences Behavioural & social sciences Ecological, evolutionary & environmental sciences
For a reference copy of the document with all sections, see nature.com/documents/nr-reporting-summary-flat.pdf

Life sciences study design
All studies must disclose on these points even when the disclosure is negative. There were no power analyses done before any sequencing. For the re-sequencing, we focused on maximizing the number of individuals we could sequence given the available budget and accessions available.
For the metabolite analysis, the selection of sample sizes was based on extensive experience with respect to the variation inherent to each of the experimental systems described in our manuscript. For these analyses, 3 fully independent biological replicates (i.e. individual plants) were used, and the experiments were conducted at two different times with similar results. Data was included for only one of the experiments to avoid confounding technical and biological replicates.
No data were excluded from any analysis except for as described in "sample size" query above, where only one of two technical replicates was included from the metabolite analysis, although similar results were found in both cases.
As described above, metabolite quantification experiments were conducted twice with similar results, so only one was included. For all sequencing analysis and sampling, no replication was performed that was not documented in the paper.
For metabolite analysis, plants from each of the experimental groups were selected randomly. Plants grown for transcriptome, Hi-C, and shotgun sequencing were randomly selected from available seeds.
For all sequence related analysis (RNAseq, shotgun re-sequencing), there was no blinding, as the people running the analysis were aware of which treatment or experimental group each sequence came from. However, we do not feel that this is relevant for this particular application, as there is limited potential for the experimenter to affect the data when the same computational approach was used for all samples. For the metabolite analysis, there was also no blinding, but again, as this is a highly automated process, there was no opportunity for the operator to have any biasing influence on the outcome.