Abstract
Several recently published Brassicaceae genome annotations show strong differences in resistance (R)-gene content. We believe that this is caused by different approaches to repeat masking. Here we show that some of the repeats stored in public databases used for repeat masking carry pieces of predicted R-gene-related domains, and demonstrate that at least some of the variance in R-gene content in recent genome annotations is caused by using these repeats for repeat masking. We also show that other classes of genes are less affected by this phenomenon, and estimate a false positive rate of R genes (0 to 4.6%) that are in reality transposons carrying the R-gene domains. These results may partially explain why there has been a decrease in published novel R genes in recent years, which has implications for plant breeding, especially in the face of pathogens changing as a response to climate change.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Raw data used in this study are available from RepBase and publicly available annotations8,9,10,13. Additional tables listing Repbase repeats containing R-gene-related repeats, and listing the R-gene candidates for the B. napus and the B. rapa annotations are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1172258.
References
Ouyang, S. & Buell, C. R. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D360–D363 (2004).
Bao, W., Kojima, K. K. & Kohany, O. Mob. DNA 6, 11 (2015).
Elsik, C. G. et al. BMC Genomics 15, 86 (2014).
Zdobnov, E. M., Campillos, M., Harrington, E. D., Torrents, D. & Bork, P. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 946–954 (2005).
Richter, T. E. & Ronald, P. C. The evolution of disease resistance genes. Plant Mol. Biol. 42, 195–204 (2000).
Tsuchiya, T. & Eulgem, T. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E3535–E3543 (2013).
Li, P. et al. BMC Genomics 17, 852 (2016).
Chalhoub, B. et al. Science 345, 950–953 (2014).
Bayer, P. E. et al. Plant Biotechnol. J. 15, 1602–1610 (2017).
Sun, F. et al. Plant J. 92, 452–468 (2017).
Cantarel, B. L. et al. Genome Res. 18, 188–196 (2008).
Wang, X. et al. Nat. Genet. 43, 1035–1039 (2011).
Cai, C. et al. Mol. Plant 10, 649–651 (2017).
Kroj, T., Chanclud, E., Michel-Romiti, C., Grand, X. & Morel, J. B. New Phytol. 210, 618–626 (2016).
Inoue, Y. et al. Nat. Commun. 8, 551 (2017).
Larkan, N. J. et al. New Phytol. 197, 595–605 (2013).
Slotkin, R. K. Mob. DNA 9, 15 (2018).
Jones, P. et al. Bioinformatics 30, 1236–1240 (2014).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by resources provided by The Pawsey Supercomputing Centre with funding from the Australian Government and the Government of Western Australia. This work was supported by computational resources provided by the Australian Government through FlashLite under the National Computational Merit Allocation Scheme. This research was funded by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council (FT130100604, DP1601004497, LP140100537, LP160100030). P.E.B. acknowledges the support of the Forrest Research Foundation. The authors would like to thank B. Greshake Tzovaras for his valuable suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
P.E.B. carried out analysis; P.E.B., D.E. and J.B. wrote the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bayer, P.E., Edwards, D. & Batley, J. Bias in resistance gene prediction due to repeat masking. Nature Plants 4, 762–765 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0264-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0264-0
This article is cited by
-
Comparative and expression analyses of AP2/ERF genes reveal copy number expansion and potential functions of ERF genes in Solanaceae
BMC Plant Biology (2023)
-
Status and advances in mining for blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans) quantitative resistance (QR) in oilseed rape (Brassica napus)
Theoretical and Applied Genetics (2021)
-
Large-scale gene gains and losses molded the NLR defense arsenal during the Cucurbita evolution
Planta (2021)
-
Genome-wide identification and comparative analysis of resistance genes in Brassica juncea
Molecular Breeding (2020)
-
Genome survey of resistance gene analogs in sugarcane: genomic features and differential expression of the innate immune system from a smut-resistant genotype
BMC Genomics (2019)