Comparative Analysis of Plant Gene Families: Methods, Tools, and Applications for Genomic Research

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide to the methodologies for comparative analysis of plant gene families, a cornerstone of modern functional genomics. Tailored for researchers and scientists, it bridges foundational concepts with advanced applications. The content systematically explores the evolutionary and functional significance of gene families, details step-by-step analytical workflows using contemporary tools like OrthoFinder and PlantTribes2, and offers practical troubleshooting strategies. It further outlines robust frameworks for validating results and performing cross-species comparisons, empowering researchers to decipher the genetic underpinnings of trait variation, adaptation, and disease resistance in plants.

The Why and What: Foundations of Plant Gene Family Evolution and Function

Defining Gene Families and Their Role in Plant Adaptation and Evolution

Gene families are sets of homologous genes that originate from a common ancestral sequence, primarily through the mechanism of gene duplication [1]. The expansion and contraction of these families are fundamental forces in the evolution of plant genomes, providing the raw genetic material for evolutionary innovation and environmental adaptation [2] [1]. In plants, the high frequency of whole-genome duplication (WGD) and tandem duplication events has resulted in exceptionally dynamic gene families, which are crucial for adapting to environmental stresses such as climate change, pathogen attack, and soil toxicity [2]. The functional divergence of duplicated genes, including the evolution of novel functions or the partitioning of ancestral functions, enables plants to develop complex regulatory networks and adaptive traits [3]. This application note provides a detailed protocol for the comparative analysis of plant gene families, placing these methods within the broader context of a research thesis aimed at understanding the genomic basis of plant adaptation.

Key Concepts and Quantitative Foundations

A gene family is operationally defined as a set of sufficiently similar genes, formed by the duplication of an original gene, and can include both orthologs and paralogs [1]. Phylogenomic studies consistently reveal a positive correlation between the number of paralogs in a genome and its overall size [1]. This relationship underscores the role of gene duplication in genome expansion. Furthermore, recent meta-analyses of 25 plant species, spanning deep evolutionary distances of approximately 300 million years, have demonstrated significant genetic repeatability in local adaptation to climate, identifying 108 gene families (orthogroups) that are repeatedly associated with climatic variables across distantly related species [4].

Table 1: Key Quantitative Findings from Large-Scale Genomic Analyses

Observation	Description	Implication for Plant Adaptation
Correlation with Genome Size	A general positive correlation exists between the number of gene copies (paralogs) and genome size in prokaryotes and plants [1].	Facilitates genome expansion and provides genetic material for functional innovation.
Repeatedly Associated Orthogroups (RAOs)	108 gene families show statistically significant, repeated associations with adaptation to diverse climate variables across 25 plant species [4].	Identifies a core set of gene families with conserved adaptive roles in climate response.
Pleiotropy of RAOs	Orthogroups with strong evidence for repeated adaptation exhibit greater network centrality and broader expression across tissues (higher pleiotropy) [4].	Contrary to some theories, genes with broader functional impacts may be key targets of repeated selection.
Intron Evolution	Intronless and intron-poor genes have emerged within intron-rich plant gene families, with many playing roles in drought and salt stress response [3].	Structural gene evolution (intron loss) is linked to adaptive functional specialization, particularly for stress responses.

Application Notes: Protocol for Gene Family Analysis

This protocol outlines the use of the PlantTribes2 framework for comprehensive gene family analysis, from initial sequence input to evolutionary interpretation [5]. PlantTribes2 is a scalable, accessible tool suite designed for comparative and evolutionary studies using genomic or transcriptomic data.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Tools and Resources for Plant Gene Family Analysis

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Analysis
PlantTribes2 [5]	Analysis Framework	A modular toolkit for gene family assembly, phylogeny, duplication inference, and visualization.
PLAZA [6]	Comparative Genomics Platform	Hosts curated plant genomes and pre-computed gene families, orthology relationships, and colinearity data.
Phytozome [7]	Genomic Portal	Provides access to sequenced plant genomes and gene families, enabling clade-specific orthology/paralogy analysis.
OrthoFinder2 [4]	Orthology Inference Software	Reconstructs orthology relationships across multiple species and classifies genes into orthogroups.
GENESPACE [7]	Synteny Visualization Tool	Tracks regions of interest and gene copy number variation across multiple genomes to explore pangenome views.

Detailed Experimental Protocol

Step 1: Data Input and Preparation

• Input: Provide annotated protein sequences in FASTA format from genome assemblies or transcriptomes. For well-studied species, high-quality annotations are available in databases like PLAZA [6] or Phytozome [7].
• Quality Control: Assess the quality of gene model annotations. PlantTribes2 can be used to improve transcript models prior to analysis [5].

Step 2: Gene Family Assignment (Orthogroup Clustering)

• Objective: Sort protein sequences into orthologous gene family clusters (orthogroups).
• Method: Use the PlantTribes2 "Gene Family Scaffolder" tool. This tool compares your input sequences to pre-computed orthogroups derived from a set of high-quality reference plant genomes [5].
• Alternative: For novel analyses or non-model organisms, run OrthoFinder2 independently to infer orthogroups de novo from your dataset and any relevant public genomes [4].

Step 3: Multiple Sequence Alignment and Phylogeny Reconstruction

• Alignment: For a gene family of interest, use the PlantTribes2 "Multiple Sequence Alignment" tool with algorithms like MAFFT or ClustalO to generate an alignment of member protein or nucleotide sequences [5].
• Phylogenetic Inference: Construct a gene tree using the "Gene Family Phylogeny" tool. Maximum Likelihood methods (e.g., IQ-TREE) implemented within the pipeline are recommended for robustness [5].

Step 4: Inference of Evolutionary Events and Selective Pressure

• Duplication Inference: The "Genome Duplication" tool reconciles the gene tree with the species tree to identify large-scale and small-scale duplication events, which are key to gene family expansion [5].
• Selection Analysis: Calculate synonymous ((dS)) and non-synonymous ((dN)) substitution rates for pairs of homologous sequences using the PlantTribes2 tool. A (dN/dS) ratio >1 indicates positive selection, while <1 suggests purifying selection [5].

Step 5: Integration with Functional and Phenotypic Data

• Functional Annotation: Overlay functional data (e.g., Gene Ontology terms) from the scaffolded gene families or external databases onto the phylogenetic tree.
• Genotype-Environment Association (GEA): To link gene families to adaptation, perform GEA analysis. For example, associate population-level allele frequencies for genes within a family with climatic variables (e.g., from WorldClim) using Kendall’s Ï„ correlation, followed by a meta-analysis across species to identify Repeatedly Associated Orthogroups (RAOs) [4].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the integrated steps of this protocol.

Results and Data Interpretation

The application of this protocol yields several key outputs for interpretation:

• Gene Family Phylogeny: A phylogenetic tree reveals evolutionary relationships among family members. Clades containing genes from a single species indicate lineage-specific expansions (e.g., tandem duplications), while clades mixing genes from multiple species suggest expansions predating speciation (e.g., from WGD) [5] [6].
• Inferred Duplication Events: The reconciliation of gene and species trees identifies specific duplication nodes. A high frequency of duplication in a gene family, particularly one associated with stress response, points to its adaptive role [2] [4].
• Selection Signatures: The detection of positive selection ((dN/dS > 1)) on specific branches or within clades provides evidence for adaptive evolution following duplication [5].
• RAO Identification: The orthogroups that show repeated associations with environmental variables across independent species represent high-confidence candidates for genes with conserved adaptive functions [4]. For instance, the protocol would flag orthogroups associated with "maximum temperature in the warmest month" for further functional validation.

Discussion and Research Applications

The integration of phylogenomics, epigenetic regulation, and protein dynamics is essential for a holistic understanding of how gene families drive plant evolution and adaptation [2]. The discovery of 108 Repeatedly Associated Orthogroups (RAOs) for climate adaptation demonstrates that evolution is significantly repeatable across deep evolutionary time and highlights a core set of gene families critical for environmental resilience [4]. This finding has profound implications for predicting how wild and crop species may respond to anthropogenic climate change.

The following diagram contextualizes the role of gene family analysis within the broader cycle of a plant comparative genomics research thesis.

Furthermore, structural variations within gene families, such as the emergence of intronless or intron-poor genes within otherwise intron-rich families, are linked to specialized functions in abiotic stress response [3]. This suggests that changes in gene structure are another evolutionary avenue for adaptation.

In conclusion, the precise definition and analysis of gene families are foundational to dissecting the genetic architecture of complex traits and adaptive responses in plants. The protocols and resources detailed here provide a roadmap for researchers to generate biologically meaningful insights, which can be further validated through experimental studies of epigenetic regulation and protein function, ultimately contributing to the development of climate-resilient crops [2].

Structural variants (SVs) and copy number variations (CNVs) represent a significant source of genomic diversity, driving phenotypic variation and environmental adaptation in plants. SVs are defined as genomic alterations affecting more than 50 base pairs, encompassing insertions, deletions, duplications, inversions, and translocations [8] [9]. CNVs, a specific category of unbalanced SVs, result from the gain (duplication) or loss (deletion) of DNA segments, leading to variation in the number of copies of a particular genomic region [9]. These large-scale variations can drastically alter gene content and genome architecture, influencing gene expression, protein function, and ultimately, phenotypic traits [10] [8].

In plant genomics, SVs and CNVs have emerged as pivotal drivers of evolutionary innovation and agricultural improvement. Unlike single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), SVs can affect multiple genes simultaneously and are more likely to cause large-scale genomic perturbations [9]. Recent studies leveraging pangenome approaches—which capture the complete genetic repertoire across multiple individuals of a species—have revealed that SVs are responsible for extensive presence-absence variations (PAVs) of genes, uncovering SV-linked agronomic traits that traditional single-reference genome-based approaches often overlook [10]. The functional impact of these variations spans from modulating disease resistance and stress adaptation to influencing fruit ripening, flavor, and flower development [10] [8] [9].

Table 1: Categories and Functional Impact of Major Genomic Variations

Variation Type	Size Range	Structural Classes	Potential Functional Consequences
Structural Variants (SVs)	>50 bp to several Mb	Insertions, Deletions, Inversions, Translocations, Duplications [8] [9]	Gene disruption, altered gene regulation, fusion genes, presence-absence variation (PAV) [10] [9]
Copy Number Variants (CNVs)	50 bp to several Kb	Tandem duplications, Segmental duplications, Deletions [9]	Altered gene dosage, changes in expression levels, functional redundancy, novel traits [9] [11]

Experimental Protocols for SV and CNV Analysis

Genome-Wide CNV Profiling Using Read-Depth Analysis

Principle: This protocol estimates copy number by analyzing the depth of sequencing reads aligning across genomic regions. Regions with significantly higher or lower read depth compared to a reference indicate duplications or deletions, respectively [9].

Materials:

• Reagent Solutions: High-quality genomic DNA, library preparation kit, sequencing reagents, mrsFAST aligner, mrCaNaVaR algorithm, RepeatMasker, Tandem Repeats Finder.

Procedure:

• DNA Extraction & Sequencing: Extract high-molecular-weight genomic DNA from plant tissue. Prepare a whole-genome sequencing library and sequence using an Illumina platform to generate short-read data [9].
• Reference Genome Preparation: Download a high-quality reference genome. Mask common and tandem repeats using RepeatMasker and Tandem Repeats Finder to improve mapping accuracy [9].
• Read Mapping: Map the sequencing reads to the repeat-masked reference genome using the mrsFAST aligner, limiting the mismatch rate to 5% of the read length for stringent alignment [9].
• CNV Calling: Use the mrCaNaVaR algorithm to predict integer copy numbers. The tool calculates read depth distribution in sliding windows and identifies segmental duplications and deletions based on excess or reduced depth of coverage [9].
• Validation: Perform quality control by mapping a subset of reads to the unmasked reference genome to assess mapping rates and potential biases.

Identification of Large SVs via Long-Read Sequencing and Comparative Assembly

Principle: Long-read sequencing technologies generate reads spanning thousands of base pairs, enabling the detection of large, complex SVs that are often missed by short-read technologies. Comparative assembly of different accessions reveals divergent regions [8].

Materials:

• Reagent Solutions: Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) HiFi or Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing reagents, Hi-C library kit, Hifiasm/HiCanu/Flye assemblers, whole-genome aligner.

Procedure:

• Long-Read Sequencing & Assembly: Sequence the target plant genome using PacBio HiFi or ONT. Assemble the reads into contigs using assemblers like Hifiasm or HiCanu to produce a phased, haplotype-resolved genome assembly [8].
• Assembly Quality Assessment: Evaluate assembly completeness and contiguity using metrics like N50 and BUSCO. Compare assemblies generated by different tools to resolve inconsistencies [8].
• Whole-Genome Alignment: Perform pairwise whole-genome alignment between the newly assembled genome and a reference genome using a tool like MUMmer to identify large-scale divergent regions [8].
• SV Characterization: Annotate the identified SV regions for gene content using tools like Prokka and for repetitive elements using RepeatMasker. Investigate the enrichment of specific transposable element superfamilies (e.g., MUDR-Mutator) within the SVs [8].
• Population-Level Validation: Map short-read data from multiple accessions to the new assembly to assess the variability and prevalence of the discovered SV across a population [8].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Genomic Variation Studies

Reagent / Resource	Function / Application	Example Use Case
PacBio HiFi Reads	Long-read sequencing for high-fidelity, contiguous genome assembly.	Resolving complex haplotype-specific SVs in cassava [8].
Oxford Nanopore MinION	Long-read sequencing for real-time SV detection.	Detecting SVs in Arabidopsis thaliana ecotypes [12].
Hi-C Library Kit	Capturing chromatin interaction data for scaffolding.	Achieving chromosome-scale genome assembly for SV analysis [8].
mrsFAST Aligner	Ultra-fast mapping of short reads for read-depth analysis.	Mapping reads for CNV detection in apple genomes [9].
mrCaNaVaR Algorithm	Read-depth-based tool for predicting integer copy numbers.	Profiling gene CNVs across 116 Malus accessions [9].
Roary	Rapid pangenome analysis pipeline for bacterial species.	Constructing the pangenome of symbiotic Bradyrhizobium [13].

Signaling Pathways and Functional Networks Influenced by SVs and CNVs

Genomic variations are not isolated events; they directly impact the structure and regulation of key biological pathways. The diagram below illustrates how SVs and CNVs influence the anthocyanin biosynthesis pathway, a well-characterized system in plants.

Pathway Logic: The pathway begins with phenylalanine and proceeds through a series of enzymatic steps catalyzed by proteins like chalcone synthase (CHS) and flavanone 3-hydroxylase (F3H). A critical branchpoint occurs at dihydroflavonols, where flavonol synthase (FLS) and dihydroflavonol 4-reductase (DFR) compete for substrates. SVs and CNVs, particularly tandem duplications, can drive the expansion of the DFR gene family [14]. This expansion alters enzyme dosage and can lead to neofunctionalization, changing substrate specificity (e.g., creating Asn-, Asp-, or Arg-type DFRs) and ultimately shifting metabolic flux toward anthocyanin production over flavonols, affecting pigmentation and stress responses [14].

Integrated Workflow for Comparative Analysis of Plant Gene Families

A robust analysis of how SVs and CNVs shape gene family evolution requires an integrated workflow that combines comparative genomics, functional genetics, and evolutionary biology.

Workflow Description: The process begins with sequencing and assembling genomes from multiple accessions or species to build a pangenome resource that captures species-wide genetic diversity [10]. The pangenome is partitioned into core (shared) and accessory (variable) gene pools, which are heavily influenced by SVs [13]. Specific SV and CNV loci are then detected using read-depth or assembly-based methods [8] [9]. Next, gene families of interest are identified from the pangenome, and their evolutionary relationships are reconstructed using phylogenetics [14]. The identified SVs/CNVs are statistically associated with phenotypic traits to prioritize causal variations [9] [11]. Finally, the role of SVs/CNVs in gene family evolution and function is validated through expression analysis (e.g., RNA-seq) and functional genetics [10] [11].

Table 3: Quantitative Insights from Recent Genomic Variation Studies

Study System	Key Finding	Impact
Apple Domestication (Malus) [9]	>20,000 genes showed differing CN profiles between species; genes for fruit flavor & anthocyanins had higher copy number in domesticated apples.	CNVs are a key driver of domestication traits, providing targets for fruit quality improvement.
Cassava (Manihot esculenta) [8]	Discovery of a 9.7 Mbp haplotype-specific insertion on chromosome 12, enriched with MUDR transposons and deacetylase genes.	Highlights the role of large SVs and TEs in genomic diversity of clonally propagated crops.
DFR Gene Family (237 Plant Species) [14]	DFR family originated in ferns/seed plants; tandem duplications primary force for expansion and emergence of Asn/Asp substrate types.	Clarifies the evolutionary mechanism behind diversity in a key flavonoid pathway gene.
Mycorrhizal Symbiosis (42 Angiosperms) [11]	Expanded gene families in mycorrhizal plants showed 200% more context-dependent expression; expansions primarily from tandem duplications.	Tandem duplications provide molecular flexibility for fine-tuning symbiotic interactions with the environment.

Gene duplication is a fundamental evolutionary process that provides the raw genetic material for innovation. Following duplication, genes primarily face three evolutionary fates: nonfunctionalization (loss of function), neofunctionalization (acquisition of new function), and subfunctionalization (partitioning of ancestral functions) [15]. The initial preservation of duplicates is often influenced by gene dosage effects, particularly following whole-genome duplication events, where maintaining stoichiometric balance in protein complexes creates selective pressure to retain both copies [16] [17]. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for comparative gene family analysis in plants, where whole-genome duplications are prevalent and have driven adaptation and domestication [16] [18].

This article outlines practical protocols for analyzing these evolutionary forces, using recent plant genomics studies as models. The principles are broadly applicable to investigating gene family evolution across taxa.

Core Concepts and Analytical Framework

Defining the Key Evolutionary Mechanisms

• Neofunctionalization: occurs when one paralog acquires a completely novel function through adaptive mutation, while the other retains the original function. This process is considered rare because it requires a series of advantageous mutations rather than degenerative ones [15].
• Subfunctionalization: involves both duplicates undergoing complementary loss-of-function mutations, resulting in the partitioning of the ancestral gene's subfunctions. Both copies are thus preserved because together they reconstitute the original functional spectrum [19].
• Gene Dosage Effects: immediately after whole-genome duplication, purifying selection often maintains both copies to preserve stoichiometric balance in multiprotein complexes. This dosage balance acts as a temporary mechanism, prolonging duplicate retention and providing an evolutionary window for subsequent neo- or sub-functionalization to occur [16] [17].
• Neosubfunctionalization: describes an evolutionary trajectory where subfunctionalization serves as an intermediate stage, eventually leading to neofunctionalization in one or both copies [15].

Quantitative Patterns of Gene Family Evolution

Table 1: Evolutionary Patterns in Plant Gene Families

Gene Family	Evolutionary Force	Genomic Evidence	Functional Consequence
NLR genes in Asparagus [20]	Gene family contraction	Reduction from 63 NLRs in wild A. setaceus to 27 in cultivated A. officinalis	Increased disease susceptibility in domesticated species
14-3-3 genes in Brassicaceae [18]	Purifying selection	Expansion following WGD, with ε-group experiencing weaker selective constraints	Functional conservation in growth, development, and stress responses
Antifreeze protein in fish [15]	Neofunctionalization	Duplicated sialic acid synthase gene acquired ice-binding function	Adaptation to frigid Antarctic environments
Visual opsin genes in vertebrates [15]	Repeated neofunctionalization	Series of duplications led to five opsin classes with distinct light absorption	Color vision and dim-light vision capabilities

Table 2: Reagent Solutions for Evolutionary Genomics

Research Reagent / Tool	Primary Function	Application Example
OrthoFinder [20]	Orthogroup inference and phylogenetic orthology analysis	Identifying conserved NLR gene pairs between A. setaceus and A. officinalis [20]
MEME Suite [20]	Discovery of conserved protein motifs	Characterizing NB-ARC domain architecture in NLR proteins [20]
PlantCARE [20]	Identification of cis-acting regulatory elements	Analyzing promoter regions of NLR genes for defense-related elements [20]
InterProScan [20]	Protein domain classification and functional analysis	Validating NLR domain structure (NBS, LRR, TIR/CC/RPW8) [20]
MEGA [21]	Phylogenetic tree construction and evolutionary analysis	Reconstructing evolutionary relationships of CNGC or 14-3-3 gene families [21] [18]
BEDTools [20]	Genomic interval operations and cluster analysis	Identifying chromosomal clustering of NLR genes [20]

Protocol: Comparative Analysis of Gene Family Evolution

Genome-Wide Identification and Classification

Objective: Comprehensively identify members of a target gene family across multiple species and classify them based on domain architecture.

Materials: Genome assemblies and annotation files for target species; reference sequences from model organisms; computational tools (HMMER, BLAST+, InterProScan, Pfam database).

Procedure:

• Sequence Retrieval:
  • Download genomic and proteomic files from databases (NCBI, Ensembl Plants, Phytozome, or species-specific resources) [21].
  • Obtain reference sequences for the gene family from well-characterized model organisms (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana for plant gene families) [21].

• Homology-Based Identification:

  • Perform HMMER searches using conserved domain profiles (e.g., PF00931 for NLR genes) [20].
  • Conduct local BLASTp searches with reference sequences using a stringent E-value cutoff (e.g., 1e-10) [20].
  • Combine results and remove redundant sequences, retaining the longest transcript per gene.

• Domain Validation and Classification:

  • Process candidate sequences through InterProScan and NCBI's CD-Search to validate domain composition [20].
  • Retain only sequences containing characteristic domain architectures (e.g., NB-ARC for NLRs; cNMP-binding and ion transport for CNGCs) [20] [21].
  • Classify genes into subfamilies based on specific domains (e.g., CNLs, TNLs, RNLs for NLRs; ε and non-ε for 14-3-3 proteins) [20] [18].

Evolutionary and Phylogenetic Analysis

Objective: Reconstruct evolutionary relationships, identify orthologs/paralogs, and detect signatures of selection.

Materials: Multiple sequence alignment software (Clustal Omega, MUSCLE); phylogenetic tools (MEGA, IQ-TREE); selection analysis programs (PAML, HyPhy).

Procedure:

• Multiple Sequence Alignment:
  • Combine protein sequences from all species and references into a single FASTA file.
  • Perform multiple sequence alignment using Clustal Omega or MUSCLE with default parameters [20] [21].
  • Manually inspect and refine alignments if necessary.

• Phylogenetic Reconstruction:

  • Construct maximum likelihood trees using software such as MEGA with the JTT matrix-based model [20] [21].
  • Employ 1000 bootstrap replicates to assess node support [20].
  • Classify genes into phylogenetic groups based on clustering with reference sequences.

• Orthology and Synteny Analysis:

  • Use OrthoFinder to identify orthogroups across species [20].
  • Perform synteny analysis using MCScanX or similar tools to identify conserved genomic blocks.
  • Map gene duplication events (tandem, segmental, WGD) onto phylogenetic contexts.

• Selection Pressure Analysis:

  • Calculate nonsynonymous/synonymous substitution rates (dN/dS) using codeml in PAML or similar tools.
  • Identify sites under positive selection (dN/dS > 1) or purifying selection (dN/dS < 1) [18].
  • Compare selection pressures between different gene subfamilies or phylogenetic groups.

Case Study: NLR Gene Family in Asparagus

Experimental Design and Phenotypic Context

A comparative analysis of NLR (Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat) genes in garden asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) and its wild relatives (A. setaceus and A. kiusianus) revealed how domestication impacted disease resistance mechanisms [20]. The study combined genomic, transcriptomic, and pathogen inoculation assays.

Pathogen Response Assay:

• Objective: Compare phenotypic responses to Phomopsis asparagi infection between species.
• Method: Inoculate plants with fungal pathogen under controlled conditions.
• Results: Distinct phenotypic responses were observed - A. officinalis was susceptible, while A. setaceus remained asymptomatic [20].

Genomic and Expression Analyses

Gene Family Quantification:

• Identified 63, 47, and 27 NLR genes in A. setaceus, A. kiusianus, and A. officinalis, respectively, demonstrating marked gene family contraction during domestication [20].

Orthologous Group Analysis:

• Used OrthoFinder to identify 16 conserved NLR gene pairs between A. setaceus and A. officinalis, representing NLRs preserved during domestication [20].

Expression Profiling:

• Analyzed transcriptomic data after fungal challenge.
• Found that most preserved NLR genes in A. officinalis showed unchanged or downregulated expression following infection, suggesting functional impairment in disease resistance mechanisms [20].

Interpretation of Evolutionary Forces

The study demonstrated that domestication led to:

• Gene family contraction through nonfunctionalization (loss of NLR genes).
• Possible subfunctionalization in retained NLRs, with altered expression patterns.
• Relaxed selection on defense mechanisms, potentially due to artificial selection for yield and quality traits [20].

This case study provides a protocol for linking genomic changes to phenotypic outcomes during domestication, highlighting the interplay between different evolutionary forces.

Emerging Approaches and Foundation Models

Recent advances in foundation models (FMs) are transforming evolutionary genomics. Plant-specific FMs such as GPN-MSA, AgroNT, and PlantCaduceus address challenges like polyploidy, high repetitive sequence content, and environment-responsive regulatory elements [22]. These models can:

• Predict functional effects of genetic variants across species.
• Identify regulatory elements and non-coding RNAs.
• Model protein structure-function relationships.
• Generate hypotheses about gene family evolution [22].

When incorporating these tools, consider:

• Using DNA-level FMs (e.g., Nucleotide Transformer, HyenaDNA) for promoter analysis and cis-regulatory element prediction.
• Applying protein-level FMs (e.g., ESM series, AlphaFold3) to understand structural consequences of amino acid changes in duplicated genes.
• Leverating single-cell FMs for resolving expression patterns in complex tissues [22].

These approaches complement traditional comparative genomics and enable more sophisticated analysis of evolutionary forces shaping gene families.

In plant comparative genomics, accurately identifying evolutionary relationships between genes is a foundational step for research on gene function, genome evolution, and trait diversity. Homology describes the relationship between any two genes that share a common ancestral sequence [23]. This broad category is precisely divided into two critical classes based on the evolutionary event that led to their divergence: orthologs and paralogs [24] [23]. Orthologs are genes in different species that originated from a single gene in the last common ancestor of those species, having diverged through a speciation event [25] [24]. In contrast, paralogs are genes related by gene duplication within a genome and may subsequently evolve new functions [24] [23].

The practical distinction between these categories is crucial. It is generally accepted that orthologs are likely to retain the same biological function across different species, making them primary targets for functional gene annotation transfer from model organisms like Arabidopsis thaliana to crops [25] [24]. Paralogs, having arisen from duplication, are more likely to undergo neofunctionalization or subfunctionalization, and are therefore often studied to understand functional innovation [24]. These concepts are extended to the orthogroup, defined as the set of all genes—including both orthologs and paralogs—descended from a single gene in the last common ancestor of all species under consideration [26]. The orthogroup provides a comprehensive framework for multi-species comparison, which is especially valuable for plant genomes with complex histories of duplication and loss [26] [27].

Key Terminology and Classifications

The relationships between homologous genes can be further refined based on specific evolutionary scenarios [24]:

• One-to-one orthologs: A single gene in one species is orthologous to a single gene in another species.
• One-to-many/Many-to-many orthologs: A single gene in one species is orthologous to multiple genes in another species, typically due to a duplication event in one lineage after speciation.
• In-paralogs: Paralogs that resulted from a duplication event after a given speciation event. These genes are co-orthologous to a gene in another species.
• Out-paralogs: Paralogs that resulted from a duplication event before a given speciation event.
• Co-orthologs: Two or more genes in one species (in-paralogs) that are collectively orthologous to a single gene (or a set of in-paralogs) in another species.
• Homoeologs: A specific type of homolog found in polyploid species, originating from speciation and brought together in the same genome by hybridization (allopolyploidization) [24].

Table 1: Summary of Key Terminology in Orthology and Paralogy

Term	Definition	Evolutionary Event	Functional Implication
Homolog	Genes sharing a common ancestor	Any	Shared ancestry, function may vary
Ortholog	Genes diverged through speciation	Speciation	High probability of functional conservation
Paralog	Genes diverged through gene duplication	Gene Duplication	Potential for functional diversification
Orthogroup	Set of all genes from multiple species descended from a single ancestral gene	N/A (grouping unit)	Enables comprehensive multi-species comparison

Inference methods are broadly classified into two paradigms: graph-based and tree-based approaches [28] [24].

Graph-Based Approaches

Graph-based methods are computationally efficient and scale well for large numbers of genomes. They typically operate in two phases [24]:

• Graph Construction: Genes are represented as nodes in a graph, and edges are drawn between them based on sequence similarity. A common starting point is the Reciprocal Best Hit (RBH or BBH), where two genes from different species are each other's best match [24]. While precise, RBH fails to capture one-to-many and many-to-many orthology relationships.
• Clustering: The graph is partitioned into clusters (orthogroups) using algorithms like Markov Clustering (MCL), which identifies densely connected regions [26] [24]. Tools like InParanoid extend RBH by identifying in-paralogs, thus capturing co-orthology relationships [24]. OrthoMCL is a widely used method that applies MCL to a graph of sequence similarities [26].

Tree-Based Approaches

Tree-based methods, also known as phylogenomic approaches, solve the more general problem of gene tree-species tree reconciliation [29] [25] [24]. The process involves:

• Gene Family Clustering: Homologous genes from multiple species are grouped into families.
• Multiple Sequence Alignment and Tree Building: A multiple sequence alignment is generated for the family, and a gene tree is inferred.
• Tree Reconciliation: The gene tree is compared to the known species tree. Each node in the gene tree is annotated as a speciation or duplication event. Genes coalescing at a speciation node are orthologs, while those at a duplication node are paralogs [24].

This method is considered more accurate as it explicitly models evolutionary history but is computationally intensive and requires a known species tree [25] [24].

Addressing Bias: The OrthoFinder Algorithm

A significant advancement in graph-based methods came with the identification of a fundamental gene length bias in orthogroup inference. Traditional methods relying on BLAST scores are biased because short sequences cannot achieve high scores, leading to their exclusion from orthogroups (low recall), while long sequences produce many high-scoring hits, causing incorrect cluster merging (low precision) [26].

OrthoFinder introduced a novel length-normalization transform for BLAST bit scores. It models the relationship between sequence length and alignment score for each species-pair independently and then normalizes all scores, ensuring that the best hits for short and long genes are comparable [26]. This innovation, combined with the use of Reciprocal Best Normalised Hits (RBNH), dramatically improved accuracy, reducing gene length dependency and increasing both precision and recall [26].

Incorporating Synteny for Reliable Orthology

For species with high-quality genome assemblies, synteny—the conservation of gene order on chromosomes—provides powerful additional evidence for orthology. Synteny is particularly useful for identifying paralogs derived from ancient whole-genome duplications (WGDs), which are common in plants [30]. A study on Brassicaceae demonstrated that synteny-based ortholog identification reliably yielded more orthologs and allowed for confident paralog detection compared to conventional methods like OrthoFinder alone. The syntenic gene sets covered a wider range of gene functions, making them highly suitable for studies linking phylogenomics to trait evolution [30].

Table 2: Comparison of Major Orthology Inference Methods

Method	Type	Key Features	Advantages	Limitations
RBH / BBH	Graph-based	Reciprocal Best BLAST Hit	Fast, high precision	Misses one-to-many orthologs
InParanoid	Graph-based	Identifies in-paralogs around RBH	Captures co-orthology	Limited to two species
OrthoMCL	Graph-based	Applies MCL to BLAST graph	Scalable to multiple species	Suffers from gene-length bias
OrthoFinder	Graph-based	Gene-length normalization, RBNH	High accuracy, scalable, infers species tree	Relies on sequence similarity only
Synteny-Based	Evidence-based	Uses conserved gene order	Highly reliable, identifies WGD paralogs	Requires high-quality genomes
Tree Reconciliation	Tree-based	Gene/species tree comparison	Evolutionarily accurate, models history	Computationally slow, needs species tree

Experimental Protocol: Orthogroup Inference Using OrthoFinder

This protocol details a standard workflow for inferring orthogroups from protein sequences of multiple plant species using OrthoFinder, a highly accurate and widely used tool [26] [27].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials and Software Tools

Item	Function/Description	Example or Note
Protein Sequence Files	Input data in FASTA format (.fa, .fasta).	One file per species, containing all annotated protein sequences.
OrthoFinder Software	The core program for orthogroup inference.	Install via Conda, Docker, or from source [26].
BLAST+	Computes pairwise sequence similarities.	Often bundled with OrthoFinder.
MSA Tool	For multiple sequence alignment.	e.g., MAFFT, required for gene tree generation.
Gene Tree Tool	For inferring phylogenetic trees.	e.g., FastTree, required for gene tree generation.
Species Tree Tool	For inferring species trees from gene trees.	e.g., ASTRAL, optional within OrthoFinder.
High-Performance Computing (HPC) Cluster	Environment for computation.	Essential for large datasets (e.g., >10 species).

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Data Preparation

  • Obtain proteome files for all species to be analyzed. Ensure consistent and high-quality gene annotations.
  • Place all proteome FASTA files in a single directory (e.g., protein_fastas/).

• Software Installation

  • Install OrthoFinder and its dependencies. Using Bioconda is recommended: conda install -c bioconda orthofinder.

• Running OrthoFinder (Basic Inference)

  • Execute a basic run with the command:

  • This command will automatically run BLAST, perform length normalization, cluster sequences into orthogroups, and output the results.

• Running OrthoFinder (With Gene Trees)

  • For a more comprehensive analysis including gene trees and a species tree, use:

  • -M msa: Use multiple sequence alignment for gene tree inference.
  • -S diamond: Use DIAMOND for faster sequence searches (BLAST alternative).
  • -T fasttree: Use FastTree for gene tree inference.

• Output Analysis

  • OrthoFinder generates results in a dated output directory. Key files include:
    • Orthogroups/Orthogroups.tsv: The core file listing all orthogroups and their constituent genes.
    • Orthogroups/Orthogroups.txt: The same information in a different format.
    • Orthogroups/Orthogroups_SingleCopyOrthologues.txt: List of single-copy orthogroups.
    • Gene_Trees/: Directory containing inferred gene trees for each orthogroup.
    • Species_Tree/: Directory containing the inferred species tree.

• Downstream Validation and Application

  • Validation: For critical gene families, manually inspect gene trees and alignments. In plants, use synteny information where available to confirm orthology/paralogy predictions, especially for genes in complex duplicated regions [30].
  • Application: Use the orthogroups for downstream analyses such as gene family expansion/contraction studies, positive selection analysis, or as a basis for phylogenetic inference.

Diagram: Workflow for orthology inference, showing graph-based (top) and tree-based (bottom) paths, with key innovations highlighted.

Application in Plant Gene Family Research: A Case Study in Brassicaceae

The Brassicaceae family, which includes Arabidopsis thaliana and numerous crops, serves as an excellent model for orthology analysis due to shared whole-genome duplications and complex genomic histories [27] [30]. A benchmark study evaluated four algorithms—OrthoFinder, SonicParanoid, Broccoli, and OrthNet—on eight Brassicaceae genomes, including diploids and polyploids [27].

The study found that orthogroup compositions generally reflected the known ploidy and genomic histories of the species. For instance, diploid species showed predominantly single-copy relationships, while mesopolyploids and hexaploids exhibited more complex patterns with more genes per orthogroup [27]. While the core results from OrthoFinder, SonicParanoid, and Broccoli were largely comparable and useful for initial predictions, OrthNet (which incorporates gene colinearity) was an outlier, suggesting that different methodologies can yield distinct groupings [27]. This underscores the importance of selecting an appropriate algorithm and potentially using synteny for fine-tuning.

For example, a focused analysis of the YABBY gene family, a plant-specific transcription factor family, revealed that while most algorithms identified the same core orthogroups, there were discrepancies in the exact gene composition within them [27]. This highlights that orthology inference, while powerful, is not infallible. For critical applications, confirming predictions with phylogenetic tree inference and synteny information is a necessary step to ensure biological accuracy [27] [30].

In the field of plant comparative genomics, interpreting genomic signatures is fundamental to understanding how evolutionary forces shape gene families and, ultimately, plant diversity and adaptation. Genomic signatures are patterns within DNA sequences that reveal the action of evolutionary processes such as mutation, genetic drift, and selection [31]. Selection pressure, quantified by metrics like the Ka/Ks ratio (non-synonymous to synonymous substitution rate), determines whether genetic changes are neutral, beneficial, or deleterious [32]. Together with evolutionary dynamics—the changes in gene and genome architecture over time—these signatures allow researchers to decipher the functional history and adaptive potential of plant gene families [5] [32].

The integration of these analyses into comparative gene family studies provides a powerful framework for linking genetic variation to important agronomic traits. This is particularly relevant for foundational research in crop improvement, conservation biology, and understanding plant responses to environmental stress [31] [33]. This Application Note provides detailed protocols for detecting and interpreting these signatures, framed within the context of plant gene family research.

Key Genomic Signatures and Analytical Methods

The following table summarizes the primary genomic signatures, their biological significance, and the core methods used for their detection in plant gene family analysis.

Table 1: Key Genomic Signatures and Analytical Methods

Genomic Signature	Biological Significance	Core Analytical Methods
Ka/Ks Ratio	Measures selection pressure on protein-coding genes. Ka/Ks > 1 indicates positive selection; < 1 indicates purifying selection; ≈ 1 indicates neutral evolution [32].	Calculation from aligned coding sequences (CDS) using tools like wgd [32].
Selective Sweeps	Genomic regions where diversity has been reduced due to strong positive selection, often linking a beneficial allele to adaptation [33].	Population genetics statistics (e.g., π, Tajima's D, FST); sliding window analyses across genomes [33].
Gene Presence-Absence Variation (PAV)	Reveals gene gain or loss within a gene family across a pan-genome, contributing to functional variation and adaptation [32].	Pan-genome construction from multiple high-quality genomes; clustering of homologous genes [32].
Genotype-Environment Association (GEA)	Identifies loci under local adaptation by correlating genetic variation with environmental factors [33].	Statistical models (e.g., Latent Factor Mixed Models - LFMM) testing allele frequency against environmental variables [33].

Computational Workflow for Gene Family Analysis

A robust analytical workflow is essential for accurate inference of evolutionary dynamics. The following diagram outlines a generalized protocol for a comparative plant gene family study.

Figure 1: A generalized computational workflow for comparative analysis of plant gene families, from data acquisition to biological interpretation.

Protocol 1: Gene Family Identification and Alignment

This protocol details the steps for identifying members of a gene family across multiple plant genomes and producing a high-quality multiple sequence alignment, a prerequisite for all downstream evolutionary analyses.

Applications: Identification of orthologs and paralogs; construction of core gene families for phylogenetic analysis; pan-genome analysis of gene content [5] [32].

Materials:

• Input Data: Annotated protein or coding sequence (CDS) files for your target species and reference genomes. High-quality genome assemblies are critical [32].
• Software/Tools: A gene family clustering tool is required. The PlantTribes2 framework is highly recommended for its plant-centric resources and accessibility via the Galaxy platform [5]. Alternative tools include OrthoFinder.
• Computing Resources: A standard laptop may suffice for small families, but server or cloud computing access is recommended for genome-scale analyses [34].

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Gather the annotated protein FASTA files for all species in your analysis. Ensure consistent annotation quality to avoid artifacts.
• Gene Family Clustering: Use a tool like PlantTribes2 to cluster all protein sequences into orthogroups (gene families). This step groups homologous genes (orthologs and paralogs) based on sequence similarity.
• Family Selection: Extract the orthogroup corresponding to your gene family of interest (e.g., JAZ genes, TCP transcription factors).
• Multiple Sequence Alignment: Align the protein sequences within the orthogroup using a tool like MAFFT [35]. For codon-based analysis like Ka/Ks, back-translate the protein alignment to the corresponding CDS alignment to maintain the correct reading frame.

Troubleshooting Tips:

• Poor Alignment: Manually inspect and trim the alignment. Remove poorly aligned regions or sequences with excessive gaps that may be mis-annotated.
• Computational Time: For large gene families, use the parallel processing options available in tools like MAFFT or perform analyses on a high-performance computing (HPC) cluster or cloud environment [34].

Protocol 2: Calculating Selection Pressure (Ka/Ks)

This protocol describes how to calculate the ratio of non-synonymous (Ka) to synonymous (Ks) substitution rates to infer selection pressure acting on a gene or gene family.

Applications: Identifying genes under positive selection during domestication or adaptation; assessing functional constraint on conserved genes; detecting divergent selection between paralogs [32].

Materials:

• Input Data: A high-quality multiple sequence alignment of coding sequences (CDS) from Protocol 1.
• Software/Tools: Software for calculating Ka/Ks ratios, such as wgd (whole-genome duplication analysis tool) or TBtools [32].
• Computing Resources: Command-line interface for wgd; graphical interface for TBtools.

Procedure:

• Input Alignment: Provide the CDS alignment file to your chosen software.
• Phylogenetic Tree: A phylogenetic tree of the sequences is often required. Construct this using a maximum likelihood method (e.g., RAxML, IQ-TREE) on the aligned sequences [32].
• Ka/Ks Calculation: Run the Ka/Ks analysis tool, referencing the alignment and the phylogenetic tree. Models can range from a single average Ka/Ks for all branches to complex branch-site models that test for positive selection on specific lineages.
• Interpretation:
  • Ka/Ks << 1: Suggests purifying (negative) selection, where most non-synonymous mutations are harmful and removed. Typical for highly conserved genes.
  • Ka/Ks ≈ 1: Suggests neutral evolution, where mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful.
  • Ka/Ks > 1: Suggests positive (diversifying) selection, where non-synonymous mutations are advantageous and fixed. For example, CsJAZ1, CsJAZ8, and CsJAZ9 in tea plants showed Ka/Ks > 1, indicating positive selection during domestication [32].

Troubleshooting Tips:

• Saturation of Ks: At high divergence levels, Ks can become saturated (approach 1), making the Ka/Ks ratio unreliable. This analysis is best for moderately diverged sequences.
• Complex Models: For advanced tests of positive selection (e.g., branch-site models), use software like PAML (CodeML), which requires a configured null model and likelihood ratio test for statistical significance.

Case Study: JAZ Gene Family in Tea Plant (Camellia sinensis)

A pan-genome study of 22 Camellia sinensis genomes provides a clear application of these protocols for interpreting genomic signatures of the JASMONATE ZIM-DOMAIN (JAZ) gene family, key regulators of stress response [32].

Experimental Protocol: Pan-Genome Based PAV and Selection Analysis

Objective: To characterize the evolutionary dynamics and selection pressures acting on the JAZ gene family across diverse tea plant cultivars.

Materials:

• Genomic Data: 22 high-quality tea plant genome assemblies [32].
• Software: Genome annotation pipelines; OrthoFinder or PlantTribes2 for gene family clustering; wgd for Ka/Ks calculation; phylogenetic software (e.g., RAxML).

Procedure & Findings:

• Gene Identification: JAZ genes were identified in each genome using homology-based searches and hidden Markov models (HMMs) of known JAZ domains [32].
• PAV Classification: Genes were classified based on their presence across the pan-genome:
  • Core genes: Present in all 22 genomes (e.g., 2 JAZ genes).
  • Near-core genes: Present in 20-21 genomes (e.g., 3 JAZ genes).
  • Dispensable genes: Present in 2-19 genomes (e.g., 10 JAZ genes).
  • Private genes: Unique to a single genome (e.g., 6 JAZ genes) [32].
• Selection Pressure Analysis: Ka/Ks ratios were calculated for each JAZ gene. The study found that CsJAZ1, CsJAZ8, and CsJAZ9 had Ka/Ks > 1, providing evidence of positive selection [32].
• Integration with Expression Data: RNA-seq analysis from four tissues showed that certain JAZ genes (e.g., CsJAZ1, CsJAZ9) were consistently highly expressed, linking evolutionary signatures to potential functional importance [32].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Genomic Analysis of Plant Gene Families

Item Name	Function/Application
High-Quality Reference Genomes	Essential for accurate gene model prediction, synteny analysis, and serving as a baseline for pan-genome studies. Quality is measured by contiguity (N50) and completeness (BUSCO scores) [32].
PlantTribes2 Framework	A scalable, Galaxy-based toolkit for gene family analysis. It classifies sequences into orthologous gene family clusters and performs downstream phylogenetics and duplication analysis [5].
Ensembl Plants Database	A centralized portal providing access to annotated plant genomes, pre-computed gene trees, whole-genome alignments, and gene families, enabling comparative genomics without local computation [36].
GA4GH Passports & Standards	A set of technical and regulatory standards for secure, ethical, and interoperable genomic data sharing across institutions and borders, which is crucial for collaborative large-scale studies [37].
Crypt4GH File Container Standard	A genomics-focused encryption standard for securing genomic data files, protecting participant privacy while allowing controlled access for analysis [38].
Oxford Nanopore/PacBio Sequencers	Long-read sequencing technologies that generate highly contiguous genome assemblies, which are vital for accurately resolving complex gene families and structural variations [34].
BiBET	BiBET, CAS:2059110-46-0, MF:C26H30N10O3, MW:530.593
BSBM6	BSBM6, CAS:1186629-63-9, MF:C23H29N3O5, MW:427.5

The How-To Guide: Step-by-Step Workflows and Toolkits for Gene Family Analysis

Genome assembly and annotation are foundational processes in genomics that transform raw DNA sequence data into a biologically meaningful representation of an organism's genetic blueprint. These interrelated processes reconstruct the full DNA sequence into continuous strands and assign functional roles to the identified sequences, enabling researchers to investigate genetic architectures across diverse species [39]. For plant gene family research, high-quality genome assembly and annotation provide the essential framework for comparative analyses, allowing scientists to trace evolutionary relationships, identify lineage-specific adaptations, and understand the functional diversification of gene families such as NLR immune receptors and CNGC ion channels [21] [40]. The advent of advanced sequencing technologies and sophisticated computational tools has dramatically improved our capacity to assemble and annotate even complex plant genomes with high repeat content and polyploidy, establishing these methodologies as critical components in modern plant genomics [39].

Workflow Fundamentals

The journey from raw sequencing data to an annotated genome follows a structured pathway with distinct stages, each with specific quality objectives. The entire process transforms short DNA sequences into chromosome-scale assemblies with comprehensive functional annotation, providing the basis for downstream comparative genomics and gene family analysis.

Table 1: Key Metrics for Assessing Genome Assembly and Annotation Quality

Metric	Description	Optimal Range/Value
N50/L50	Contig or scaffold length at which 50% of the total assembly length is contained in sequences of this size or longer; indicates continuity [39].	Higher values indicate more continuous assemblies.
BUSCO Score	Assessment of assembly completeness based on evolutionarily informed expectations of universal single-copy orthologs [39] [41].	>90% (Complete) indicates high completeness.
Gene Space Completeness	Proportion of expected or conserved genes present in the annotation.	Assessed via orthogroup occupancy in tools like PlantTribes2 [42].
Base-Level Accuracy	Rate of misassembled or incorrect bases; improved through polishing [39].	QV (Quality Value) > 40 is considered high quality.
CA-5f	CA-5f, MF:C24H24N2O3, MW:388.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Cfmmc	Cfmmc, MF:C22H28FNO4, MW:389.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Phase 1: Genome Assembly

Pre-Assembly Considerations

Successful genome assembly begins with careful experimental planning and understanding of genomic properties. Key considerations include:

• DNA Quality: The extraction of high-quality, high-molecular-weight (HMW) DNA is crucial, especially for long-read sequencing technologies [43]. The DNA must be chemically pure and structurally intact, free from contaminants like polysaccharides, polyphenols, or humic acids that can impair library preparation.
• Genomic Properties: Investigate genome size, heterozygosity, ploidy level, repeat content, and GC-content before sequencing [43]. High heterozygosity and repeat content can lead to fragmented assemblies, while extreme GC-content can cause coverage biases in Illumina sequencing.

Data Generation and Preprocessing

Current sequencing strategies often combine multiple technologies to leverage their complementary strengths:

• Long-Read Technologies: Platforms such as PacBio and Oxford Nanopore generate reads spanning several kilobases, which are invaluable for resolving repetitive regions and producing more contiguous assemblies [43] [41].
• Short-Read Technologies: Illumina sequencing provides highly accurate short reads that are useful for polishing long-read assemblies and correcting base-level errors.
• Data Preprocessing: Raw sequencing reads undergo quality control, adapter trimming, and error correction using tools like FastQC and Trimmomatic [39]. This step ensures that only high-quality data proceeds to assembly.

Assembly and Quality Control

Table 2: Common Tools for Genome Assembly and Assessment

Tool	Application	Key Features
Canu	De novo assembly of long reads [39] [41].	Corrects reads, trims reads, and assembles corrected reads. Suitable for noisy long reads.
Flye	De novo assembly of long reads [39] [41].	Uses repeat graphs for assembly, effective for large genomes.
SPAdes	De novo assembly of short reads or hybrid assembly [39].	Uses de Bruijn graphs, works well with small genomes and hybrid data.
Pilon	Assembly improvement/polishing [39].	Uses alignment information to correct indels, mismatches, and fill gaps.
BUSCO	Assembly completeness assessment [39] [41].	Benchmarks universal single-copy orthologs to assess completeness.

The assembly process itself involves reconstructing the genome from sequencing reads through either de novo (without a reference) or reference-guided approaches. Assemblers align and merge reads into contigs, which are then ordered and oriented into scaffolds representing chromosomes [39]. The resulting assembly must undergo rigorous quality assessment using metrics like N50 and BUSCO scores [39] to evaluate contiguity and completeness before proceeding to annotation.

Phase 2: Genome Annotation

Structural Annotation

Structural annotation identifies the precise location and structure of genomic features, including genes, exons, introns, and regulatory elements.

• Repeat Masking: The first step involves identifying and masking repetitive elements using tools like RepeatMasker to prevent false-positive gene predictions [39].
• Gene Prediction: This can be achieved through several approaches:
  • Ab initio Prediction: Tools like AUGUSTUS and GeneMark use statistical models to identify genes based on sequence patterns such as splice sites, start/stop codons, and codon usage [39].
  • Evidence-Based Prediction: This approach incorporates transcriptomic (RNA-seq) or proteomic data to guide and validate gene models, often resulting in more accurate predictions [39] [43].
• Automated Pipelines: Tools such as MAKER and BRAKER3 combine multiple evidence sources and prediction algorithms in a comprehensive workflow to generate consensus structural annotations [39] [41].

Functional Annotation

Functional annotation assigns biological meaning to the structurally annotated genes by comparing them against known sequence databases.

• Homology-Based Assignment: Tools like BLAST are used to align predicted protein sequences to curated databases such as UniProt, identifying homologous relationships and transferring functional information [39] [21].
• Domain and Motif Analysis: Tools including InterProScan and HMMER identify conserved protein domains and motifs by scanning against databases like Pfam and SMART, providing insights into protein function and classification [21] [40].
• Pathway Integration: Functional annotation is further enriched by linking genes to biological pathways using databases like KEGG, placing genes in the context of larger metabolic and regulatory networks [39].

Application to Plant Gene Family Analysis

Identification and Classification of Gene Families

Comparative analysis of gene families begins with the identification of homologous genes across species, which relies heavily on high-quality genome annotations [42] [21]. The standard protocol involves:

• Data Mining: Compile protein sequences from reference genomes of interest [21].
• Homology Search: Use characterized gene family members from a reference species (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana CNGCs or NLRs) as queries in BLASTP searches against target proteomes with a defined significance threshold (e.g., E-value < 1e-5) [21] [40].
• Domain Verification: Confirm candidate genes by checking for defining protein domains using tools like HMMER or Pfam [21]. For CNGCs, this includes both a cNMP-binding domain and an ion transport domain.
• Phylogenetic Analysis: Perform multiple sequence alignment using tools like MAFFT or MUSCLE, followed by phylogenetic tree construction with RAxML or MEGA to determine evolutionary relationships and classify genes into subfamilies [42] [21] [40].

Evolutionary and Functional Analysis

Once gene family members are identified and classified, several analyses elucidate their evolutionary history and functional constraints:

• Analysis of Gene Duplication: Identify tandem and segmental duplication events by analyzing genomic synteny, which reveals mechanisms of gene family expansion [42] [21].
• Calculation of Evolutionary Rates: Estimate synonymous (dN) and non-synonymous (dS) substitution rates to understand selective pressures acting on gene family members [42].
• Identification of Conserved Motifs: Use motif discovery tools like MEME to identify short, conserved sequence patterns that may represent functionally important regions, even in highly diverse gene families like plant NLRs [40].

Table 3: Key Reagents and Computational Tools for Gene Family Analysis

Category/Tool	Function	Application in Protocol
Reference Genomes	High-quality annotated genomes for sequence retrieval and homology searches.	Source of query sequences and comparative data (e.g., from PLAZA, Phytozome) [42] [44].
BLAST+ Suite	Local alignment tool for identifying homologous sequences [21] [40].	Initial identification of candidate gene family members in a proteome.
HMMER	Profile hidden Markov model tool for domain searching [40].	Verification of defining protein domains in candidate genes.
MAFFT	Multiple sequence alignment program [40].	Creating alignments of gene family members for phylogenetic analysis.
RAxML	Phylogenetic tree inference using maximum likelihood [40].	Reconstructing evolutionary relationships among gene family members.
MEME Suite	Discovery of conserved sequence motifs [40].	Identifying short, conserved functional motifs within aligned protein sequences.
PlantTribes2	Gene family analysis pipeline [42].	Scaffolding, sorting sequences into orthologous groups, and downstream evolutionary analyses.

Integrated Protocols

Protocol: Phylogenomics of Plant NLR Immune Receptors

This protocol identifies evolutionarily conserved motifs in diverse plant nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) receptors [40].

• Annotation: Annotate NLR genes from proteome datasets using NLRtracker or NLR-Annotator tools.
• Alignment and Phylogeny: Combine sequences with known reference NLRs. Perform multiple sequence alignment with MAFFT and construct a phylogenetic tree with RAxML.
• Sequence Extraction: Extract sequences of a specific NLR subfamily (e.g., CC-NLRs) based on phylogenetic clustering.
• Motif Discovery: Use the MEME suite to identify conserved, ungapped sequence motifs within the extracted protein sequences.
• Validation: Map identified motifs onto the protein alignment and phylogenetic tree to assess conservation patterns and functional relevance.

Protocol: Comparative Analysis of Plant CNGC Gene Family

This protocol details the identification and evolutionary characterization of Cyclic Nucleotide-Gated Channel (CNGC) genes in plants [21].

• Identification and Filtering: Use 20 reference AtCNGC proteins in a BLASTP search against a target plant proteome (E-value < 1e-5). Retain sequences with >75% similarity over ~70% of the query length.
• Domain and Motif Validation: Verify the presence of both cNMP-binding and ion transport domains using HMMER/Pfam. Manually check aligned sequences for the presence of the critical "PBC" and "hinge" regions.
• Phylogenetic Classification: Perform a phylogenetic analysis with reference AtCNGCs using MEGA software. Classify and name new CNGC genes based on their clustering with established Arabidopsis groups.
• Evolutionary Analysis: Analyze gene structures (exon-intron patterns), calculate non-synonymous/synonymous substitution rates (dN/dS), and investigate syntenic relationships to infer duplication events and evolutionary history.

A robust workflow from genome assembly to functional annotation is fundamental for comparative plant genomics. The integration of long-read sequencing technologies, advanced computational tools, and standardized protocols enables the generation of high-quality genomic resources. These resources, in turn, empower detailed investigations into the evolution and function of plant gene families. As sequencing technologies continue to advance and computational methods become more sophisticated, these workflows will provide even deeper insights into the genetic basis of plant biology, with significant implications for crop improvement, evolutionary studies, and understanding plant-environment interactions.

The identification and classification of gene families is a cornerstone of modern plant genomics, enabling researchers to decipher evolutionary relationships, infer gene function, and identify genetic patterns underlying key agronomic traits [45]. As sequencing technologies continue to produce vast amounts of genomic data, the challenge has shifted from data generation to meaningful biological interpretation [5] [46]. This protocol details a robust methodology for gene family identification that integrates multiple complementary bioinformatics tools—BLAST for sequence similarity searches, HMMER for profile-based detection, and conserved domain databases (Pfam, SPARCLE) for structural validation. When applied within the context of plant comparative genomics, this integrated approach significantly enhances detection sensitivity and reduces false positives compared to single-method pipelines, particularly for distantly related homologs and complex gene families [47] [45] [48].

Table 1: Core Bioinformatics Tools for Gene Family Identification

Tool Category	Specific Tools	Primary Function	Strengths
Sequence Similarity Search	BLASTP, BLASTX	Identify sequences with significant similarity to query	Fast, widely understood, good for initial screening
Profile-Based Search	HMMER	Detect remote homologs using hidden Markov models	Superior for detecting divergent sequences
Conserved Domain Databases	Pfam, SPARCLE	Identify and classify protein domains	Provides functional and evolutionary context
Integrated Pipelines	PlantTribes2, geneHummus	Combine multiple methods for comprehensive analysis	Automated, reproducible, scalable

Materials

Bioinformatics Software and Databases

The following software tools and databases are essential for implementing the gene identification protocols described in this application note. Installation instructions for all tools are available on their respective official websites.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Category	Name	Function/Application	Availability
Sequence Search Tools	NCBI BLAST+ Suite	Local sequence similarity searches	https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
	HMMER	Profile hidden Markov model searches	http://hmmer.org
Domain Databases	Pfam	Protein family and domain classification	http://pfam.xfam.org
	SPARCLE	Protein architecture and subfamily classification	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sparcle
Integrated Environments	PlantTribes2	Scalable gene family analysis framework	https://github.com/dePamela/PlantTribes2
	geneHummus	R package for automated gene family identification	https://github.com/halleybug/genehummus
Reference Data	RefSeq	Curated non-redundant reference sequences	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/refseq

Computational Requirements

For optimal performance, the following computational resources are recommended:

• Memory: Minimum 16 GB RAM (64+ GB recommended for genome-scale analyses)
• Storage: High-speed SSD with sufficient capacity for large sequence databases and intermediate files
• Processing: Multi-core processors (16+ cores) significantly accelerate HMMER and alignment steps

Methods

Integrated Workflow for Comprehensive Gene Family Identification

The following integrated methodology leverages the complementary strengths of similarity-based, profile-based, and domain-based identification approaches to maximize the detection of true gene family members while minimizing false positives.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

BLAST-Based Gene Identification

BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) provides a fundamental method for identifying sequences with significant similarity to known query sequences.

Procedure:

• Query Selection: Select one or more well-characterized protein sequences representing the gene family of interest. For plant studies, consider including queries from diverse species (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Oryza sativa) to maximize detection sensitivity [45].
• Database Preparation: Format target proteome or genome databases using makeblastdb for efficient searching.
• BLAST Execution: Perform BLASTP or TBLASTN searches with the following optimized parameters:

• Result Filtering: Retain hits with E-values < 1e-5 and sequence identity >30% for further analysis. For large gene families, consider more stringent thresholds (E-value < 1e-10) to reduce false positives [45].

HMMER and Pfam Domain Analysis

Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) provide superior sensitivity for detecting evolutionarily divergent members of gene families that may be missed by BLAST alone [49] [48].

Procedure:

• Domain Identification: Identify characteristic protein domains for your gene family using Pfam (https://pfam.xfam.org). For example, the ARF gene family is characterized by B3 (PF02362), AUX_RESP (PF06507), and AUX/IAA (PF02309) domains [47].
• HMM Profile Acquisition: Download pre-built HMM profiles from Pfam or build custom profiles from multiple sequence alignments of known family members using hmmbuild.
• HMMER Search: Execute profile searches against your target database:

• Domain Architecture Validation: Verify that candidate sequences contain the complete complement of domains expected for the gene family using InterProScan or similar tools.

SPARCLE Database Querying

The SPARCLE database provides pre-computed protein architecture information that can dramatically accelerate gene family identification, particularly for well-characterized families [47].

Procedure:

• Architecture Definition: Determine the specific domain architecture that defines your gene family of interest.
• SPARCLE Query: Access SPARCLE through the NCBI interface or programmatically via E-utilities to retrieve proteins matching your target architecture.
• Taxonomic Filtering: Restrict results to relevant taxonomic groups (e.g., Viridiplantae for plant-specific studies).
• Sequence Retrieval: Download protein sequences and corresponding accessions for architectures matching your gene family definition.

Manual Curation and Validation

Manual curation between computational steps significantly enhances the validity of gene family identification by allowing for the detection of problematic sequences that might be retained in fully automated pipelines [45].

Procedure:

• Sequence Alignment: Perform multiple sequence alignment of candidate genes using MAFFT or MUSCLE:

• Phylogenetic Analysis: Construct preliminary phylogenetic trees using maximum likelihood or Bayesian methods:

• Visual Inspection: Manually inspect alignments and tree topology to verify that candidate sequences group with known members of the gene family and display characteristic conserved residues.
• Final Membership Determination: Based on all available evidence, make a final determination of gene family membership.

Case Study: ARF Gene Family Identification in Legumes

To illustrate the practical application of these methods, we describe a case study identifying auxin response factor (ARF) genes in legume species, adapting the approach implemented in the geneHummus package [47].

Experimental Protocol:

• Domain Definition: The ARF gene family was defined by the presence of B3 DNA binding domain (Pfam 02362), AUX_RESP (Pfam 06507), and AUX/IAA (Pfam 02309) domains.
• SPARCLE Query: The SPARCLE database was queried for proteins containing the complete ARF domain architecture, filtered for Fabaceae taxonomy IDs.
• Sequence Retrieval: Protein accessions were retrieved from the RefSeq database and converted to amino acid sequences.
• Validation: The pipeline identified 24 ARF proteins in the chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genome, reproducing previous manual annotations but completing the analysis in under 6 minutes compared to 6 months for manual approaches [47].

Table 3: ARF Gene Family Members Identified in Legume Species

Species	Genome Version	ARF Proteins Identified	Gene Loci	Analysis Time
Cicer arietinum (Chickpea)	v2.0	24	24	<6 minutes
Arachis duranensis	v1.0	31	~18	<6 minutes
Arachis ipaensis	v1.0	29	~17	<6 minutes
Medicago truncatula	Mt4.0v1	27	~22	<6 minutes
Glycine max (Soybean)	Wm82.a2.v1	55	~41	<6 minutes

Discussion

Comparative Performance of Gene Identification Methods

Each gene identification method offers distinct advantages and limitations that make them suitable for different research scenarios. Understanding these trade-offs is essential for selecting appropriate methodologies for specific research questions.

Table 4: Method Comparison for Gene Family Identification

Method	Sensitivity	Specificity	Speed	Best Use Cases
BLAST	Moderate	Moderate	Fast	Initial screening, closely related sequences
HMMER/Pfam	High	High	Moderate	Divergent sequences, domain-based families
SPARCLE	High for defined architectures	Very High	Very Fast	Well-characterized families with defined architectures
Manual Pipeline	Highest	Highest	Slow	Critical analyses requiring high confidence
Integrated Approach	Highest	Highest	Moderate	Comprehensive studies requiring maximal detection

Applications in Plant Comparative Genomics

The integration of these gene identification methods enables powerful applications in plant comparative genomics, including:

• Evolutionary History Reconstruction: Gene family analysis can reveal lineage-specific expansions and contractions that illuminate evolutionary adaptations. For example, the PlantTribes2 framework has been used to infer large-scale duplication events and phylogenetic relationships across diverse plant lineages [5].

• Functional Prediction: Identification of orthologs in non-model species allows for functional inference based on characterized genes in model systems, though caution is needed as orthologs in distantly related species may not share identical functions [45].

• Crop Improvement: Comparative analysis of gene families underlying agronomic traits in related species can identify candidates for breeding programs. The application of PlantTribes2 to Rosaceae species exemplifies this approach for economically important plants [5] [42].

Troubleshooting and Optimization

Common challenges in gene family identification and recommended solutions:

• High False Positive Rates: Implement stricter E-value thresholds (1e-10 instead of 1e-5) and require complete domain architectures characteristic of the gene family.
• Missing Divergent Homologs: Combine BLAST searches with HMMER profiling and consider more sensitive alignment modes in HMMER.
• Inconsistent Domain Boundaries: Manually verify domain boundaries using multiple tools (Pfam, SMART, CDD) and consider known structures from resources like ECOD.
• Computational Resource Limitations: For large genomes, consider cloud computing resources or optimized implementations like HMMER3, which provides approximately 100-fold speed improvement over previous versions [50].

The integration of BLAST, HMMER, and conserved domain databases provides a robust framework for comprehensive gene family identification in plant genomics research. This multi-faceted approach leverages the complementary strengths of each method—BLAST for rapid similarity detection, HMMER for sensitive profile-based searching, and domain databases for structural validation—to achieve both high sensitivity and specificity. As plant genomics continues to expand with increasing numbers of sequenced genomes, these bioinformatic methods will remain essential for translating sequence data into biological insights with applications in evolutionary studies, functional characterization, and crop improvement.

Orthology inference, the process of identifying genes across different species that originated from a common ancestral gene through speciation events, serves as a foundational element in comparative genomics. In plant genomes, which are frequently characterized by complex evolutionary histories including whole-genome duplication events and subsequent gene loss, accurate orthology inference is particularly challenging yet crucial for transferring functional gene annotations from model organisms to crops and for understanding evolutionary relationships. The development of sophisticated computational tools has transformed this field, enabling researchers to move beyond simple pairwise sequence comparisons to comprehensive phylogenomic approaches. Among these tools, OrthoFinder and PlantTribes2 have emerged as powerful, widely-adopted solutions that address the critical need for accurate, scalable, and accessible orthology inference specifically tailored to plant genomic complexities. These platforms help researchers overcome the significant hurdles presented by polyploidy, extensive gene families, and variable genome annotation quality that commonly complicate plant genomic studies [5] [51].

OrthoFinder provides a comprehensive phylogenetic framework for genome-wide orthology inference, while PlantTribes2 offers a modular, accessible workflow for gene family analysis within an evolutionary context. Together, they represent the current state-of-the-art in plant orthology inference, enabling researchers to tackle fundamental questions about gene family evolution, genome duplication history, and the genetic basis of trait diversity across plant species. This guide presents detailed protocols for implementing both tools, along with practical advice for selecting the appropriate method based on specific research objectives and genomic contexts, framed within the broader methodology for comparative analysis of plant gene families research [52] [42].

Selecting the appropriate orthology inference tool requires careful consideration of research goals, data characteristics, and computational resources. OrthoFinder and PlantTribes2 approach orthology inference through different but complementary methodologies, each with distinct strengths and optimal use cases. OrthoFinder implements a comprehensive phylogenomic pipeline that infers orthogroups, reconstructs gene trees, identifies gene duplication events, and reconstructs the species tree from protein sequences alone. Its accuracy has been demonstrated through independent benchmarking, where it outperformed other methods on standard ortholog inference tests by 3-30% [52]. According to a recent evaluation using Brassicaceae genomes, OrthoFinder consistently produces reliable orthogroup predictions, even when analyzing datasets that include mesopolyploid and hexaploid species alongside diploids [53].

PlantTribes2 functions as a scalable, accessible framework specifically designed for comparative gene family analysis in plants, though it remains applicable to any organisms. Rather than performing de novo orthology inference from sequence data alone, it utilizes pre-computed orthologous gene family clusters ("gene family scaffolds") from high-quality reference genomes as a foundation for classifying new sequences. This approach enables efficient integration of user-provided data with established community resources. The toolkit is particularly valuable for targeted analyses of specific gene families of interest, providing functionalities for multiple sequence alignment, gene family phylogeny reconstruction, synonymous and non-synonymous substitution rate estimation, and inference of large-scale duplication events [5] [54].

Table 1: Comparative Overview of OrthoFinder and PlantTribes2

Feature	OrthoFinder	PlantTribes2
Primary Approach	Phylogenomic orthology inference from first principles	Classification against pre-computed gene family scaffolds
Core Methodology	Gene tree-species tree reconciliation	Sequence similarity search and phylogenetic analysis
Input Requirements	Protein sequences in FASTA format (one file per species)	Genome or transcriptome annotations; protein coding sequences
Key Outputs	Orthogroups, orthologs, rooted gene trees, species tree, gene duplication events	Gene family assignments, multiple sequence alignments, gene trees, evolutionary rates
Scalability	Full genome-scale analyses across hundreds of species	Genome-scale analyses, with particular strength in targeted gene family studies
Accessibility	Command-line interface, with Conda installation available	Galaxy web interface, command-line, and Bioconda installation
Best Applications	De novo orthology inference across multiple species; comprehensive phylogenomic analysis	Integrating new data with existing genomic resources; focused gene family studies
Plant-Specific Optimizations	General purpose but highly accurate for plants	Designed specifically for plant genomic complexities

The choice between these tools depends largely on the research context. For analyses involving multiple species without established reference gene families, or when a comprehensive phylogenomic analysis is required, OrthoFinder typically represents the optimal choice. For studies focusing on specific gene families within a botanical context, particularly when seeking to leverage existing high-quality plant genome annotations, PlantTribes2 offers a more targeted approach with rich downstream analytical capabilities [51] [42]. Both tools can be installed via Bioconda, simplifying dependency management and deployment across different computational environments [55] [54].

OrthoFinder Protocol

Installation and Data Preparation

OrthoFinder installation follows a straightforward process, with the Bioconda channel representing the recommended approach for most users. The following command installs OrthoFinder along with all necessary dependencies:

Alternative installation options include downloading pre-compiled bundles or the source code directly from the GitHub repository, which now resides at https://github.com/OrthoFinder/OrthoFinder rather than the original repository [55].

Input data preparation requires protein sequences for each species to be analyzed in FASTA format, with one file per species. OrthoFinder automatically recognizes files with extensions including .fa, .faa, .fasta, .fas, or .pep. While the tool is designed to work with standard protein sequence predictions, input data quality significantly impacts results. Therefore, researchers should implement quality control measures such as removing fragmented sequences, verifying proper translation, and filtering out transposable elements where possible [55] [52].

Basic Analysis Workflow

The fundamental OrthoFinder command executes a complete orthology inference pipeline:

In this command, the -f parameter specifies the input directory containing FASTA files, -t controls the number of threads for BLAST/DIAMOND searches, and -a regulates the number of parallel sequence alignment threads. For larger datasets, the --assign option provides a faster method for adding new species to an existing analysis by assigning them to pre-computed orthogroups [55].

The OrthoFinder algorithm proceeds through several sophisticated stages: (1) identification of orthogroups using sequence similarity graph-based clustering; (2) inference of gene trees for each orthogroup; (3) identification of the rooted species tree from these gene trees; (4) rooting of all gene trees using the species tree; and (5) duplication-loss-coalescence analysis to identify orthologs, paralogs, and gene duplication events. This comprehensive approach enables OrthoFinder to achieve its benchmark-leading accuracy in ortholog identification [52].

Output Interpretation and Advanced Applications

OrthoFinder generates an extensive set of result files organized in an intuitive directory structure. Key outputs include:

• Phylogenetic Hierarchical Orthogroups: Directory containing orthogroups defined at each node of the species tree (N0.tsv, N1.tsv, etc.), which are approximately 12% more accurate than the graph-based orthogroups according to Orthobench benchmarks [55].
• Orthologues: Pairwise ortholog files between species, categorized as one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many relationships.
• Gene Duplication Events: Inference of duplication events positioned on both gene trees and the species tree.
• Comparative Genomics Statistics: Comprehensive statistics including species-specific orthogroup statistics, gene duplication rates, and phylogenetic discordance measures [55] [52].

For advanced applications involving species with complex ploidy histories, such as recently polyploidized Brassicaceae species, researchers should pay particular attention to the hierarchical orthogroup files, as these more accurately represent orthology relationships across species with different duplication histories. When working with large datasets, the --assign functionality enables scalable addition of new species to existing analyses without recomputing the entire phylogenetic framework [55] [53].

Table 2: OrthoFinder Output Files and Their Applications in Plant Genomics

Output File/Directory	Description	Application in Plant Gene Family Research
PhylogeneticHierarchicalOrthogroups/	Orthogroups defined at each node of the species tree	Studying gene family evolution across specific clades; handling polyploid taxa
Orthogroups/Orthogroups.tsv	(Deprecated) Graph-based orthogroups	Legacy analyses; comparison with previous methods
Gene_Trees/	Rooted phylogenetic trees for each orthogroup	Detailed evolutionary analysis of specific gene families
Species_Tree/	Inferred rooted species tree	Framework for comparative analyses; phylogenetic context
GeneDuplicationEvents/	Positions of gene duplication events on trees	Dating duplication events; association with WGD events
ComparativeGenomicsStatistics/	Various statistics including orthogroup sizes, duplication rates	Genomic evolutionary dynamics; lineage-specific expansions

PlantTribes2 Protocol

PlantTribes2 offers multiple installation options to accommodate different user preferences and computational environments. For users preferring graphical interfaces, the tool suite is available on the main public Galaxy instance (usegalaxy.org), requiring no local installation. For command-line implementation, Bioconda provides the most straightforward installation method:

Alternatively, the software can be downloaded directly from GitHub for maximum customization and development purposes [5] [42].

The PlantTribes2 framework comprises a collection of modular tools that can be executed independently or as integrated workflows. At its core lies the concept of "gene family scaffolds" - pre-computed clusters of orthologous and paralogous sequences derived from carefully selected reference genomes. These scaffolds provide the evolutionary context for classifying new sequences and conducting downstream analyses. The current implementation includes scaffolds constructed from high-quality plant genomes, but the system remains organism-agnostic and can be adapted to other taxonomic groups [5] [42].

Analysis Workflow and Integration Points

A typical PlantTribes2 analysis progresses through several stages, with multiple entry points depending on the nature of the input data and research questions:

The workflow begins with assigning user-provided sequences to pre-computed gene families through sequence similarity searches. For researchers working with new genome assemblies or annotations, PlantTribes2 includes functionality for transcript model improvement prior to family assignment, addressing the common challenge of incomplete or erroneous gene models in plant genomes [5] [51].

Once sequences are assigned to gene families, downstream analyses include:

• Multiple sequence alignment of family members
• Gene family phylogeny reconstruction
• Estimation of evolutionary rates (synonymous and non-synonymous substitutions)
• Inference of large-scale duplication events within gene families

A particularly powerful application in plant genomics is the Core OrthoGroup (CROG) analysis, which identifies conserved, single-copy orthogroups useful for phylogenetic reconstruction and understanding genome evolution. This approach has been successfully applied to studies of Rosaceae and Orobanchaceae, demonstrating its utility for resolving evolutionary relationships and gene family dynamics in economically important plant families [5] [42].

Practical Applications in Plant Gene Family Research

PlantTribes2 excels in targeted gene family analyses within complex plant genomes. A case study investigating architecture-related genes in European pear (Pyrus communis) demonstrated how the framework can identify missing genes and correct annotation errors in reference genomes. Through iterative curation using PlantTribes2, researchers recovered 50 previously missing genes from architecture-related gene families in the 'Bartlett' pear genome and corrected numerous errors in gene models, significantly improving the utility of these genomic resources for functional studies [51].

For transcriptomic studies in non-model plants, PlantTribes2 enables evolutionary contextualization of expressed sequences without requiring complete genome assemblies. The classification of transcriptome data against established gene family scaffolds facilitates functional inference and comparative analyses across species boundaries. This approach has proven particularly valuable for studying evolutionary relationships in parasitic plants (Orobanchaceae), where genome complexity presents challenges for conventional orthology inference methods [5] [42].

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools and Resources for Orthology Inference

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
OrthoFinder	Phylogenomic orthology inference	De novo orthogroup identification across multiple species
PlantTribes2	Gene family analysis framework	Classification and evolutionary analysis of gene families
DIAMOND	Accelerated sequence similarity search	Fast BLAST-like searches for large datasets
MAFFT/ClustalW	Multiple sequence alignment	Preparing alignments for phylogenetic analysis
FastTree/RAxML	Phylogenetic tree inference	Gene family tree reconstruction
PLAZA	Plant comparative genomics platform	Pre-computed gene families and functional annotations
Galaxy Platform	Web-based bioinformatics workflow system	Accessible implementation of PlantTribes2 and other tools
Bioconda	Package management system	Simplified installation of bioinformatics software

OrthoFinder and PlantTribes2 represent complementary approaches to the fundamental challenge of orthology inference in plant genomics. OrthoFinder provides a comprehensive, phylogenetically rigorous solution for de novo inference of orthologous relationships across multiple species, while PlantTribes2 offers a flexible, scalable framework for classifying sequences within an evolutionary context and conducting targeted gene family analyses. Both tools continue to evolve, with recent developments focusing on improved scalability, enhanced accuracy through better integration of phylogenetic information, and increased accessibility through web-based platforms and standardized distribution channels [55] [5] [52].

As plant genomics continues to expand beyond model organisms to encompass thousands of species with diverse morphologies, physiological adaptations, and genomic architectures, the importance of accurate orthology inference will only increase. The integration of these tools with emerging technologies such as long-read sequencing, pan-genome analysis, and machine learning approaches promises to further enhance our ability to decipher the evolutionary history of plant gene families and connect genotype to phenotype across the botanical tree of life. By mastering the practical application of OrthoFinder and PlantTribes2 as detailed in this guide, researchers can effectively navigate the complexities of plant genomes and extract meaningful biological insights from the growing wealth of genomic data.

In the field of plant genomics, comparative analysis of gene families is fundamental for understanding evolutionary relationships, gene function, and adaptive traits. This process typically involves identifying homologous genes across species, constructing a multiple sequence alignment (MSA), and inferring a phylogenetic tree. The accuracy of the final phylogenetic tree is critically dependent on the quality of the initial multiple sequence alignment, making the choice of alignment software a crucial decision [56].

This application note provides a detailed protocol for phylogenetic reconstruction, focusing on two widely used alignment tools, MUSCLE and MAFFT, followed by tree building using MEGA software. The protocol is framed within the context of plant gene family analysis, where researchers often contend with large datasets resulting from complex evolutionary histories involving whole-genome duplications (WGDs) and extensive gene family expansions [6].

Multiple Sequence Alignment: A Critical First Step

Multiple sequence alignment is the foundation of phylogenetic analysis. It establishes homologous positions across sequences, which are then used to calculate evolutionary distances. Several algorithms exist, primarily categorized into progressive methods and iterative refinement methods [57] [56].

• Progressive Methods: These methods, used by early versions of CLUSTALW and the first stage of MUSCLE, involve calculating a distance matrix between all sequence pairs, building a guide tree (e.g., using UPGMA), and then aligning sequences according to the tree's branching order. They are fast but can be inaccurate for divergent sequences because early alignment errors are propagated and cannot be corrected later [57] [58].
• Iterative Refinement Methods: To address the limitations of progressive methods, programs like MUSCLE and MAFFT incorporate iterative refinement. This process involves partitioning the initial alignment and re-aligning the subsets, accepting new alignments only if they improve a chosen objective score, such as the sum-of-pairs (SP) score. This can correct misalignments introduced in the initial progressive step [57] [59] [58].
• Consistency-Based Methods: More advanced approaches, such as those in MAFFT's L-INS-i and T-Coffee, use a consistency score to maximize the agreement between the multiple alignment and all pairwise alignments. This often yields higher accuracy, especially for alignments with long indels or low sequence similarity, though at a higher computational cost [57] [56].

Choosing Between MUSCLE and MAFFT

Both MUSCLE and MAFFT are highly regarded for their accuracy and speed. The choice between them depends on the specific characteristics of your dataset and the desired balance between computational time and accuracy.

Table 1: Comparison of MUSCLE and MAFFT alignment algorithms and characteristics.

Feature	MUSCLE	MAFFT
Core Algorithm	Progressive alignment with iterative refinement (pre-v5); Hidden Markov Model similar to ProbCons (v5+) [59]	Offers a suite of methods: progressive (FFT-NS-1, FFT-NS-2), iterative refinement (FFT-NS-i), and consistency-based (L-INS-i, E-INS-i, G-INS-i) [57]
Key Strength	High speed and accuracy, especially on large datasets [58]	Flexibility; provides a range of algorithms optimized for different data types (global, local, structural) [57]
Best Suited For	General-purpose protein and nucleotide alignments, including large datasets [58]	Difficult alignments with long unalignable regions (E-INS-i), single domains with flanking sequences (L-INS-i), or globally alignable sequences (G-INS-i) [57]
Benchmark Performance	Achieved highest or joint-highest rank in accuracy on BAliBASE, SABmark, and SMART benchmarks [58]	Probcons, T-Coffee, Probalign and MAFFT outperformed other programs in accuracy in a 2014 benchmark [56]

Table 2: Quantitative performance comparison of MSA programs based on a BAliBASE benchmark study [56].

Program	Relative Alignment Accuracy	Relative Speed	Relative Memory Usage
Probcons / T-Coffee / Probalign / MAFFT	Highest	Slower	Higher
MUSCLE	High	Fast	Medium
CLUSTALW / CLUSTAL Omega / DIALIGN-TX / POA	Moderate	Fastest (CLUSTALW) to Moderate	Lowest (CLUSTALW) to Medium

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Multiple Sequence Alignment with MUSCLE

MUSCLE is a popular choice for its excellent balance of speed and accuracy. The following protocol uses the latest version, Muscle5, which introduces ensemble alignments for improved confidence estimates [59].

1. Obtain Sequences: Gather the amino acid or nucleotide sequences of the plant gene family members you wish to align. Ensure sequences are in a common format (e.g., FASTA).

2. Install MUSCLE: Download the latest version from the official repository (https://drive5.com/muscle). Installation typically involves compiling the C++ source code or downloading a pre-compiled binary for your operating system.

3. Execute Alignment: The basic command for a standard multiple sequence alignment is:

For improved accuracy, especially with larger or more divergent datasets, use the -super5 option which is optimized for large alignments:

To generate an ensemble of alignments for assessing confidence—a key feature of Muscle5—use the -ensemble option:

4. Interpret Results: The final alignment will be written to output.alm in the specified format. If the -ensemble option was used, multiple alignment files will be generated, allowing you to assess the robustness of your phylogenetic conclusions to alignment uncertainty.

Protocol 2: Multiple Sequence Alignment with MAFFT

MAFFT offers a variety of algorithms, allowing you to select the optimal strategy for your specific data. The most accurate options are the iterative refinement methods [57].

1. Obtain Sequences: As in Protocol 1.

2. Install MAFFT: Download from the official website (https://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/software/). Pre-compiled binaries are available for most platforms.

3. Select Algorithm and Execute Alignment: Choose an algorithm based on your dataset (see Table 1). The following are common use cases:

• For sequences with one globally alignable domain (e.g., a conserved protein domain), use the G-INS-i algorithm, which assumes the entire sequence can be aligned:

• For sequences containing long unalignable regions (e.g., genes with introns or low-complexity flanking sequences), the E-INS-i algorithm is more appropriate:

• For a fast alignment of a large number of sequences where high precision is not the primary concern, the progressive method FFT-NS-2 is suitable:

4. Interpret Results: Inspect the alignment file output.alm in a viewer such as Jalview or MEGA's built-in editor to check for obvious misalignments.

Workflow Visualization: From Sequences to Phylogenetic Tree

The following diagram summarizes the key decision points and steps in a standard phylogenetic reconstruction workflow.

Protocol 3: Phylogenetic Tree Construction with MEGA

MEGA (Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis) is a user-friendly software suite that integrates tools for sequence alignment, evolutionary distance calculation, and phylogenetic tree inference [60].

1. Alignment Preparation: Import your aligned sequence file (e.g., output.alm from MUSCLE or MAFFT) into MEGA. The software can read various formats, including FASTA.

2. Evolutionary Model Selection: Use the built-in model selection tool to find the best-fit substitution model for your data. This is a critical step, as using an inappropriate model can bias the tree topology.

3. Tree Building Method Selection: MEGA offers several algorithms. Two common distance-based methods are:

• Neighbor-Joining (NJ): A fast and efficient method that does not assume a molecular clock. It is often accurate and is a good choice for an initial tree [60].
• UPGMA: This method assumes a constant rate of evolution (molecular clock). It is simpler but can produce misleading trees if the rate assumption is violated [60].

4. Execute Tree Construction: Run the selected algorithm (e.g., Neighbor-Joining). MEGA will compute a distance matrix and infer the tree topology.

5. Assess Branch Support: To evaluate the confidence in the tree nodes, perform bootstrapping. A common practice is to run 1000 bootstrap replicates. Nodes with bootstrap values above 70% are generally considered well-supported.

6. Interpret and Visualize the Tree: The final tree can be visualized and annotated within MEGA. When analyzing plant gene families, carefully interpret the tree to distinguish between orthologs (genes separated by a speciation event) and paralogs (genes separated by a duplication event), as this is key to understanding gene function and genome evolution [6] [61].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This section lists key computational tools and resources essential for phylogenetic analysis of plant gene families.

Table 3: Essential computational tools and resources for phylogenetic reconstruction.

Item Name	Function / Application	Relevant Links
MUSCLE Software	Performs multiple sequence alignment of protein or nucleotide sequences.	https://drive5.com/muscle
MAFFT Software	Performs multiple sequence alignment using a variety of algorithms for different data types.	https://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/software/
MEGA Software	Integrated tool for sequence alignment, model selection, phylogenetic inference, and tree visualization.	https://www.megasoftware.net/
BAliBASE Dataset	Benchmark database of reference alignments used to validate and compare the accuracy of MSA methods.	http://www.lbgi.fr/balibase/
PLAZA Platform	A plant-specific comparative genomics resource that provides pre-computed gene families, orthology, and phylogenetic trees for many plant species.	https://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/plaza/ [6]
Ensembl Plants	A genome-centric portal providing access to annotated plant genomes, gene trees, and homology data.	https://plants.ensembl.org [61]
CMP3a	CMP3a, CAS:2225902-88-3, MF:C28H27F3N6O2S, MW:568.6192	Chemical Reagent
CZ830	CZ830, CAS:1333108-58-9, MF:C25H26F3N5O4S, MW:549.5692	Chemical Reagent

In the field of comparative plant genomics, researchers increasingly rely on integrated bioinformatic workflows to understand the evolution, regulation, and functional diversity of gene families. The combination of synteny analysis (which identifies conserved gene order across genomes) and cis-regulatory element prediction (which identifies regulatory motifs in promoter regions) provides a powerful approach for linking genomic structural variation to potential regulatory differences. This protocol details the application of two specialized tools—GENESPACE for synteny analysis and PlantCARE for cis-element prediction—within a comprehensive framework for plant gene family characterization [62] [63]. This integrated approach is particularly valuable for investigating biological processes such as disease resistance mechanisms in horticultural crops [20], the evolution of architectural traits in fruit trees [51], and the functional diversification of conserved gene families across plant lineages [21].

Synteny Analysis with GENESPACE

GENESPACE is an R package that integrates syntenic context and sequence similarity to infer high-confidence orthology relationships across multiple genomes [62]. Unlike methods that rely solely on sequence similarity, GENESPACE addresses the circular challenge in comparative genomics where knowledge of gene copy number is needed to infer orthology, yet measures of synteny and orthology are themselves required to infer copy number [62]. The method operates on a foundational assumption that homologs should be exactly single copy within any syntenic region between a pair of genomes, while explicitly addressing two major violations of this assumption: tandem arrays and gene presence-absence variation (PAV) [62].

Workflow and Implementation

The following diagram illustrates the complete GENESPACE workflow, from data preparation through visualization:

Workflow Diagram 1. The GENESPACE analytical pipeline integrates syntenic context and sequence similarity to infer orthology.

Input Data Requirements and Preparation

GENESPACE requires specific input formats for each genome to be analyzed:

• Peptide sequences in FASTA format, with headers exactly matching the gene names in the corresponding BED file.
• Gene annotations in BED format, containing chromosome, start, end, and gene name columns [64].

The parse_annotations function can facilitate the conversion of raw annotation files (e.g., GFF3 and FASTA from NCBI or Phytozome) into the required formats, ensuring proper matching between gene models and peptide sequences [64].

Running the Analysis

The core GENESPACE analysis is executed in the R environment:

• Initialize the GENESPACE run after installing required dependencies (OrthoFinder 2.5.5, MCScanX, and R packages):

• Execute the full pipeline:
  This single function executes the complete workflow, including tandem array discovery, syntenic block calculation, synteny-constrained orthogroups, and visualization [64].

Output and Interpretation

GENESPACE generates several key outputs:

• Synteny-constrained orthogroups: Orthogroups where member genes reside in syntenic regions across genomes, providing higher confidence in orthology predictions compared to sequence similarity alone [62].
• Pan-genome annotation: A comprehensive annotation that maps all putative orthologs and paralogs onto the coordinate system of a specified reference genome, facilitating analysis of copy-number variation (CNV) and presence-absence variation (PAV) [62].
• Visualizations: Riparian plots for multi-genome synteny visualization and pairwise dotplots for assessing syntenic relationships and genome rearrangements [64].

Applications in Plant Gene Family Research

GENESPACE has been successfully applied to diverse biological questions, including tracing 300 million years of vertebrate sex chromosome evolution and dissecting gene copy number and structural variation across 26 maize cultivars [62]. In Rosaceae research, GENESPACE has helped identify and correct thousands of missing genes due to methodological bias in the 'Bartlett' pear genome, enabling more accurate comparative analysis of gene families involved in tree architecture [51].

Promoter cis-Element Analysis with PlantCARE

PlantCARE (Database of Plant Cis-Acting Regulatory Elements) is a well-established resource for identifying known cis-regulatory elements in plant promoter sequences [63] [65]. These elements—including binding sites for transcription factors, enhancers, and repressors—play crucial roles in regulating gene expression in response to developmental, environmental, and hormonal signals [66]. PlantCARE contains manually curated data on regulatory elements extracted primarily from literature, supplemented with computationally predicted sites [63].

Workflow and Implementation

The following diagram illustrates the PlantCARE analysis workflow:

Workflow Diagram 2. Analytical steps for identifying cis-regulatory elements using the PlantCARE database.

Sequence Submission and Analysis

• Extract promoter sequences: Obtain sequences upstream of the translation start site (ATG). While definitions vary, PlantPAN (a related resource) typically uses 2000 bp upstream of the transcription start site, while studies of NLR genes in asparagus used 2000 bp upstream of the ATG [66] [20].
• Submit to PlantCARE: Access the web server at http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/plantcare/html/ and paste promoter sequences (up to 1500 bp) into the query box using the "Search for CARE" function [65].
• Interpret results: The output includes identified cis-elements, their positions, strand orientation, sequences, and functional descriptions [65].

Key cis-Regulatory Elements in Plants

Table 1. Common cis-regulatory elements identified by PlantCARE in plant promoters

Element Name	Sequence	Function	Reference
TATA-box	TATA(A/T)A(A/T)	Core promoter element	[66]
CAAT-box	CAAT	Common regulatory element	[66]
ABRE	ACGTG	Abscisic acid responsiveness	[20]
G-box	CACGTG	Light responsiveness	[20]
W-box	TTGAC	Defense and stress responses	[20]
E-box	CANNTG	Light regulation and circadian control	[66]
MYB-binding site	TAACCA, TAACCA	Drought responsiveness	[65]

Applications in Gene Family Studies

PlantCARE analysis has been effectively used to characterize promoter regions of gene families with important biological functions. For example, in a study of NLR (Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat) genes in asparagus, PlantCARE identified numerous cis-elements responsive to defense signals (e.g., W-boxes) and phytohormones in the promoters of NLR genes, providing insights into their potential regulation during immune responses [20]. This approach can reveal how different members of a gene family might be differentially regulated despite sequence similarity.

Integrated Workflow for Gene Family Analysis

Connecting Synteny and Regulatory Evolution

The powerful integration of GENESPACE and PlantCARE enables researchers to trace both structural and regulatory evolution of gene families. This combined approach allows for:

• Identification of conserved orthologs using GENESPACE's synteny-constrained method.
• Analysis of promoter architecture of syntenic orthologs using PlantCARE.
• Detection of conserved non-coding sequences in promoter regions of syntenic genes, which may indicate functionally important regulatory elements.
• Correlation of gene duplication events (identified through synteny) with divergence in regulatory elements (identified through promoter analysis).

Case Study: NLR Gene Family in Asparagus

A recent study on NLR genes in garden asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) and its wild relatives demonstrates the power of integrating synteny and promoter analysis [20]. Researchers identified orthologous NLR gene pairs between wild and cultivated species using synteny-based approaches similar to GENESPACE, then analyzed their promoter regions using PlantCARE. This integrated analysis revealed that domesticated asparagus experienced both contraction of the NLR gene repertoire and potential alterations in regulatory elements of retained NLR genes, contributing to increased disease susceptibility [20].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2. Essential tools and databases for synteny and promoter analysis

Resource	Type	Function	Access
GENESPACE	R package	Synteny-constrained orthology inference	https://github.com/jtlovell/GENESPACE [64]
PlantCARE	Database	cis-regulatory element identification	http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/plantcare/html/ [63]
OrthoFinder	Software	Orthogroup inference from sequence data	https://github.com/davidemms/OrthoFinder [64]
MCScanX	Algorithm	Syntenic block identification	https://github.com/wyp1125/MCScanX [64]
PlantPAN	Database	Promoter analysis with TF binding sites	http://PlantPAN.mbc.nctu.edu.tw [66]
MEGA	Software	Phylogenetic analysis and tree building	https://www.megasoftware.net/ [21]
TBtools	Software	Biological data visualization and analysis	[20]

The integration of GENESPACE for synteny analysis and PlantCARE for cis-element prediction provides a robust framework for comprehensive characterization of plant gene families. This combined approach enables researchers to establish high-confidence orthology relationships across species while investigating the regulatory evolution that may underlie functional diversification. As plant genomics continues to expand with new genome sequences, these tools will become increasingly valuable for translating genomic information into biological insights, particularly for non-model species and crops with complex evolutionary histories. The protocols outlined in this article provide a foundation for researchers to apply these methods to their gene families of interest, from disease resistance genes in horticultural crops [20] to developmental regulators in fruit trees [51].

The comparative analysis of plant gene families, which are groups of related genes that often share similar functional roles, is fundamental to understanding the genetic basis of agronomic traits. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become the predominant method for quantifying gene expression across different tissues, developmental stages, and stress conditions [67]. While individual experiments provide valuable snapshots, the true power of modern plant genomics lies in the integration of data from large public repositories. The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) hosts two of the most comprehensive resources: the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and the Sequence Read Archive (SRA). These archives contain thousands of RNA-seq datasets, enabling researchers to explore gene family expression and regulation on a scale far beyond a single laboratory's capacity. This Application Note provides a detailed protocol for accessing, processing, and integrating public RNA-seq data from these repositories, with a specific focus on applications in plant gene family research.

Key Public Repositories for RNA-seq Data

Navigating the landscape of data repositories is the first critical step in a data integration project. The table below summarizes the primary sources for plant RNA-seq data.

Table 1: Key Public Repositories for Plant RNA-seq Data

Repository	Data Type	Primary Use Case	Notable Features
NCBI GEO/SRA [68] [69]	Raw reads (FASTQ) & processed data	Broadest data source; primary submission site	Central archive; NCBI-generated count matrices for consistent analysis
The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) [70]	Processed & raw data	Human cancer transcriptomics (e.g., breast cancer)	Clinical data integration; not plant-specific
ENCODE [70]	Raw & processed data	Reference transcriptomes for model cell lines	High-quality, deeply annotated data for specific systems

For plant-specific studies, NCBI GEO/SRA is the most comprehensive source. A major barrier to using the vast amount of raw data in the SRA has been the computational cost and effort required to uniformly process reads into gene-level counts. To address this, the NCBI SRA and GEO teams have developed a pipeline that precomputes RNA-seq gene expression counts for human and mouse data, delivering count matrices suitable for input into tools like DESeq2 and edgeR [68]. While this service is not yet available for plants, its existence underscores the importance of consistent data processing, a principle that must be manually applied in plant studies.

A Step-by-Step Guide to Data Download

The process of acquiring data from NCBI is methodical. The following protocol ensures efficient and correct data retrieval.

Protocol 1: Downloading RNA-seq Data from NCBI

• Access and Search: Navigate to the NCBI GEO website. Use the search bar with keywords relevant to your plant gene family (e.g., "Arabidopsis thaliana root RNA-seq", "Zea mays drought") [69].
• Identify Relevant Series: Browse the results to locate studies of interest. Studies are typically classified as "Series" (GSE) and contain multiple "Samples" (GSM). Click on the GSE title to access the dataset landing page [69].
• Review Experiment Design: On the dataset page, carefully review the experimental design, including organism, tissue type, treatments, and sequencing platform. This metadata is crucial for determining the suitability of the data for your comparative analysis of gene families.
• Download Processed Data: If the submitter has provided processed data files (e.g., gene count matrices or normalized expression values), these can often be downloaded directly from the "Data table" or "Supplementary files" section on the GEO dataset page [69].
• Download Raw Data via SRA Toolkit: For raw sequencing reads (FASTQ format), use the NCBI SRA Toolkit. The links to the SRA are found under "Download Options" on the GEO dataset page.
  • Use prefetch to download the SRA file for a specific run accession (e.g., SRRxxxxxxx):

  • Convert the SRA file to FASTQ format using fastq-dump:
    The --split-files argument is essential for paired-end reads [69].

Computational Analysis Pipeline

From Raw Reads to Expression Counts

Once raw data is acquired, a standardized computational workflow is required to transform sequencing reads into a gene expression matrix ready for comparative analysis. The following workflow diagram and protocol outline this process.

Diagram 1: RNA-seq Data Processing Workflow

Protocol 2: Data Processing and Quantification

This protocol assumes a basic familiarity with command-line tools and the availability of a reference genome and annotation file for the plant species of interest [71].

• Pre-alignment Quality Control (QC):

  • Generate a QC report for raw sequence data using FastQC.

  • Use MultiQC to aggregate FastQC results from all samples into a single report.
  • Trim low-quality bases and adapter sequences using fastp. This step is crucial for data from different studies which may have varying levels of quality and use different adapters [71].

  • Run FastQC again on the trimmed reads to confirm improved quality.

• Alignment to Reference Genome:

  • Use a splice-aware aligner like STAR. First, generate a genome index.

  • Align the trimmed reads to the reference genome.
    This command outputs both a genomic alignment (for visualization) and a transcriptomic alignment (for quantification) [71].

• Gene-Level Quantification:

  • Quantify expression using alignment-free tools like Salmon, which offers high accuracy and speed. After building a transcriptome index, run the quantification step.

  • The output of Salmon (or the STAR alignment) can be imported into R using the tximport package to create a gene-level count matrix, which is the required input for differential expression tools like DESeq2 [71].

Downstream Analysis for Gene Family Studies

With a unified gene count matrix, researchers can proceed to the biological interpretation phase, focusing on gene families.

Protocol 3: Differential Expression and Functional Analysis

• Differential Expression Analysis:

  • In R, use the DESeq2 package to identify genes that are statistically significantly differentially expressed between conditions (e.g., mutant vs. wild-type, treated vs. control) [72] [71].
  • The core DESeq2 analysis involves creating a DESeqDataSet object, running the DESeq function, and extracting results. This will identify individual genes within a family that show significant expression changes.

• Gene Family-Centric Analysis:

  • Filter and Subset: Extract expression data for the gene family of interest (e.g., all genes belonging to the NAC or MYB transcription factor families) from the full dataset.
  • Visualization: Create heatmaps of normalized expression values for the gene family across all samples to visualize co-expression patterns and identify potential sub-functionalization.
  • Cross-Study Comparison: When integrating multiple datasets, use batch correction methods (e.g., in the limma package) to account for technical variation between different studies before comparing expression profiles.

The Scientist's Toolkit

A successful RNA-seq integration project relies on a suite of bioinformatics tools and reagents. The table below lists essential components.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for RNA-seq Analysis

Category	Item/Software	Key Function
Bioinformatics Tools	FastQC [71], MultiQC [71]	Quality control of raw and trimmed sequencing reads.
	fastp [71], Trimmomatic [73]	Trimming of adapter sequences and low-quality bases.
	STAR [71], HISAT2 [68]	Splice-aware alignment of reads to a reference genome.
	Salmon [71], featureCounts [68]	Quantification of gene-level or transcript-level expression.
	DESeq2 [72] [71], edgeR [68]	Statistical analysis for differential gene expression.
Reference Files	Reference Genome (FASTA)	The genomic sequence of the target organism for read alignment.
	Gene Annotation (GTF/GFF)	The coordinates of genes, transcripts, and exons.
Computational Resources	High-Performance Computing (HPC) Cluster	Essential for processing large datasets (e.g., alignment).
	R and Bioconductor	Primary environment for statistical analysis and visualization.
DC661	DC661, MF:C31H39Cl2N5, MW:552.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
DH376	DH376, CAS:1848233-57-7, MF:C31H28F2N4O3, MW:542.5868	Chemical Reagent

Advanced Applications and Future Directions

For non-model plant species where a high-quality reference genome is unavailable, a de novo transcriptome assembly is necessary. Tools like Trans2express provide a pipeline optimized for gene expression analysis, using a hybrid approach that combines accurate short reads (Illumina) with long reads (Oxford Nanopore or PacBio) to recover full-length transcripts [74]. This enables the identification and expression analysis of gene families in species with limited genomic resources.

Emerging trends are set to further enhance gene family research. Single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) allows for the profiling of gene expression at the resolution of individual cells, revealing cell-type-specific expression patterns of gene family members that are masked in bulk tissue analyses [67]. Spatial transcriptomics adds a geographical layer to this data, showing exactly where in a tissue these genes are active [67]. Finally, the integration of RNA-seq data with other multi-omics datasets (e.g., proteomics, metabolomics) provides a more holistic view of how gene families function within broader biological networks [67].

Beyond the Basics: Optimizing Pipelines and Solving Common Analysis Hurdles

In the field of plant comparative genomics, the quality of genome assemblies and annotations forms the foundational bedrock upon which all downstream analyses are built. Comparative gene family research, which aims to understand evolutionary relationships, gene duplication events, and functional divergence, is particularly sensitive to data quality issues [5]. Errors in assembly or annotation can lead to misinterpretations of orthology and paralogy, skew phylogenetic analyses, and ultimately generate incorrect biological conclusions [75].

The Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO) tool provides a standardized approach to assess the completeness and quality of genomic datasets based on evolutionarily informed expectations of gene content [76]. Unlike technical metrics that measure contiguity, BUSCO evaluates the gene space—the very material of gene family analyses—by testing for the presence of universal single-copy orthologs [77] [78]. This application note details protocols for implementing BUSCO assessments within the context of plant gene family research, providing researchers with robust methods for validating their genomic data before embarking on comparative analyses.

BUSCO Fundamentals and Key Concepts

The BUSCO Approach

BUSCO operates on a simple but powerful principle: evolutionarily conserved genes that are present as single-copy orthologs in at least 90% of species within a lineage provide a benchmark for assessing the completeness of genomic datasets [78]. The tool compares the submitted data against a specialized database of these "core" genes, providing a quantitative measure of completeness based on biological expectations rather than mere technical parameters [76].

The assessment categorizes genes into four primary classes:

• Complete (C): Genes found as single-copy matches to the BUSCO dataset
• Complete-Duplicated (D): Genes found in multiple copies
• Fragmented (F): Genes matching only partially to BUSCO profiles
• Missing (M): Genes with no detectable match in the submitted data [77] [78]

BUSCO Analysis Modes

BUSCO provides three specialized analysis modes tailored to different data types, each employing distinct underlying pipelines to optimize assessment accuracy [77]:

• Genome Mode: Utilizes a combination of tBLASTn and Augustus for gene prediction and annotation
• Transcriptome Mode: Relies on HMMER for identifying open reading frames
• Proteome Mode: Employs direct comparison against BUSCO profiles using HMMER

Table 1: BUSCO Analysis Modes and Their Applications

Analysis Mode	Input Data Type	Primary Pipeline	Best For
Genome	Assembled contigs/scaffolds	tBLASTn + Augustus	Assessing whole genome assemblies and annotations
Transcriptome	Assembled transcripts	HMMER	Evaluating transcriptome completeness
Proteome	Predicted protein sequences	HMMER	Validating protein-coding gene sets

BUSCO Workflow and Implementation

The following diagram illustrates the core BUSCO assessment workflow, showing the parallel pathways for different input data types:

Protocol: Comprehensive Genome Assembly Assessment

Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of a plant genome assembly prior to gene family analysis.

Materials Required:

• Genome assembly in FASTA format
• High-performance computing environment with BUSCO installed
• Appropriate BUSCO lineage dataset for plants

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Software Installation and Setup

• Lineage Dataset Selection

• Run BUSCO Assessment

• Interpret Results

  • Examine the short_summary.txt file
  • A high-quality plant genome should exceed 95% complete BUSCOs [75]
  • Elevated duplicated BUSCOs may indicate haplotype redundancy or recent duplications

Protocol: Gene Annotation Set Validation

Purpose: To assess the completeness of gene structure annotations for gene family analysis.

Materials Required:

• Annotated protein or transcript sequences in FASTA format
• Corresponding genome assembly (for context)

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Run Proteome Assessment

• Alternative Transcriptome Assessment

• Comparative Analysis

  • Compare results from genome and proteome modes to identify annotation gaps
  • Use fragmented BUSCOs to pinpoint potentially incomplete gene models

BUSCO Metrics and Quality Benchmarks

Table 2: BUSCO Quality Benchmarks for Plant Genomic Data

Quality Tier	Complete BUSCOs	Fragmented BUSCOs	Missing BUSCOs	Suitability for Gene Family Analysis
Gold Standard	>95%	<3%	<5%	Excellent: High confidence in gene content
Good	90-95%	3-5%	5-10%	Good: Suitable for most analyses
Moderate	80-90%	5-10%	10-15%	Cautioned: Potential missing genes
Poor	<80%	>10%	>15%	Unsuitable: Significant gaps present

Research on crop genomes has demonstrated that high-quality assemblies with BUSCO completeness scores exceeding 95% provide reliable foundations for gene family analyses, whereas those below 90% may contain significant deficiencies that compromise downstream comparative studies [75].

Integrating BUSCO with Complementary Quality Metrics

While BUSCO provides exceptional assessment of gene space completeness, it should be integrated with other quality metrics for comprehensive genomic data evaluation:

Complementary Quality Assessment Tools

• GenomeQC: Integrates BUSCO with additional metrics including LTR Assembly Index (LAI) for repeat space assessment [79]
• QUAST: Provides traditional assembly contiguity statistics (N50, L50) [79]
• LAI: Specifically assesses repetitive region assembly completeness [75]

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Bioinformatics Tools for Genomic Quality Assessment

Tool/Resource	Primary Function	Application in Quality Control	Key Reference
BUSCO	Gene space completeness	Assessing missing/duplicated genes	[76]
GenomeQC	Multi-metric integration	Comparative quality benchmarking	[79]
LTR_retriever	Repeat space analysis	LAI score calculation	[75]
PlantTribes2	Gene family analysis	Downstream utilization of quality data	[5]
OrthoDB	Ortholog database	Source of BUSCO gene sets	[77]

Application in Plant Gene Family Research

Case Study: GATA Transcription Factor Analysis

A recent genome-wide comparative analysis of GATA transcription factors in sweetpotato and related species exemplifies proper BUSCO implementation [80]. The researchers conducted BUSCO assessments on seven Convolvulaceae genomes, confirming high completeness scores before proceeding with identification of 410 GATA genes and subsequent phylogenetic analysis. This quality validation ensured that observed gene family expansions reflected biological reality rather than assembly artifacts.

Integration with Comparative Genomics Pipelines

Tools like PlantTribes2 leverage quality-checked genomic data for sophisticated comparative analyses [5] [42]. The framework utilizes pre-computed orthologous gene family clusters and performs downstream analyses including:

• Multiple sequence alignment
• Gene family phylogeny reconstruction
• Estimation of synonymous and non-synonymous substitution rates
• Inference of large-scale duplication events

BUSCO assessments provide the critical quality assurance needed for these analyses to yield biologically meaningful insights into plant evolution and gene family dynamics.

BUSCO represents an indispensable tool in the plant comparative genomicist's toolkit, providing standardized, biologically relevant assessment of genome assembly and annotation quality. By implementing the protocols outlined in this application note, researchers can ensure their data meets the rigorous standards required for reliable gene family analysis, forming a solid foundation for evolutionary and functional studies across the plant kingdom.

In the field of plant comparative genomics, the analysis of gene families is fundamental to understanding evolutionary history, gene function, and the genetic basis of agronomically important traits. The selection of an appropriate computational pipeline is a critical first step that significantly impacts the efficiency, reproducibility, and biological validity of the research. This Application Note provides a detailed comparative analysis of three distinct approaches: the standardized PlantTribes2 pipeline, the specialized geneHummus tool (representing domain-specific databases), and the flexible framework of Custom Scripts.

The decreasing cost of sequencing has led to an explosion of plant genomic resources [5] [81]. However, the downstream analysis of this data remains computationally expensive and requires a level of bioinformatic expertise that can be a barrier to many researchers [5]. This document is structured to guide scientists in selecting the most suitable methodological framework for their specific research objectives, whether they are conducting broad evolutionary studies, focused investigations on specific plant families, or highly customized analyses.

Pipeline Summaries

• PlantTribes2 is a scalable, flexible, and broadly applicable gene family analysis framework. It is designed as a collection of modular tools that can sort genes from genomic or transcriptomic data into pre-computed orthologous gene family clusters, facilitating rich functional annotation and downstream evolutionary analyses [82] [5]. Its development was driven by the need to make genome-scale comparative analyses more accessible, and it is freely available on the main public Galaxy instance, GitHub, and Bioconda [5].

• geneHummus is referenced here as a representative of specialized, often clade-specific analytical resources or databases (e.g., focused on legumes). While a direct analysis is not possible, such tools typically provide highly curated gene families and functional annotations for a specific taxonomic group. They offer deep domain expertise but may lack the flexibility to incorporate data from distant lineages or novel, non-model organisms.

• Custom Scripts represent a do-it-yourself approach, where researchers assemble their own pipeline using a combination of published tools (e.g., OrthoFinder for orthogroup inference, MAFFT for alignment, IQ-TREE for phylogenetics) and in-house code. This method offers maximum flexibility and control but demands significant bioinformatics expertise, computational resource management, and development time [5].

Quantitative and Qualitative Comparison

The following table provides a structured comparison of the key characteristics of each pipeline to aid in the selection process.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Gene Family Analysis Pipelines

Feature	PlantTribes2	geneHummus (Representative)	Custom Scripts
Primary Use Case	General-purpose plant gene family analysis; transferring knowledge from model organisms to crops [82]	Specialized analysis within a specific plant family (e.g., legumes)	Highly customized, novel, or non-standard analyses
Accessibility	High (Galaxy web interface, Conda installation) [5]	Moderate to High (typically web-based or pre-packaged)	Low (requires command-line expertise) [5]
Scalability	High (designed for genome-scale data) [5]	Variable (often limited by database scope)	Potentially high, but depends on implementation
Flexibility & Customization	Moderate (modular with configurable parameters) [5]	Low (confined to the tool's predefined scope)	Very High (unlimited control over tools and parameters)
Data Integration	Can utilize pre-computed scaffolds and integrate user-provided data from any organism [5]	Limited to the integrated database and sometimes small user uploads	Fully flexible, can integrate any data source
Output & Functionality	Gene family assignment, multiple sequence alignment, phylogeny, duplication inference [5]	Pre-computed families, annotations, and sometimes simple tools	Defined entirely by the researcher
Technical Expertise Required	Low to Moderate	Low	High [5]
Reproducibility	High (standardized workflows)	High	Variable (can be low without careful version control)
Support & Documentation	Peer-reviewed publication, tutorials, sample datasets [5]	Typically limited to website/documentation	Community support for individual tools; no unified documentation

Workflow Visualization

The logical workflow for a typical gene family analysis, from data input to final output, is visualized below. This diagram highlights the stages where the choice of pipeline dictates the available options.

Detailed Methodologies and Protocols

PlantTribes2 Workflow Protocol

The following protocol outlines a standard gene family analysis using PlantTribes2, which is particularly effective for studies aiming to transfer functional knowledge from well-studied model plants to difficult-to-study crops, as demonstrated in apple research [82].

3.1.1 Experimental Workflow

3.1.2 Step-by-Step Protocol

• Data Input and Preparation

  • Input: Provide the pipeline with annotated protein sequences or coding sequences (CDS) from genome assemblies or transcriptome assemblies [5].
  • Transcript Improvement (Optional): For transcriptomic data, PlantTribes2 can first be used to improve the quality and completeness of the gene model predictions [5].

• Gene Family Assignment

  • Process: The AssemblyPostProcessor and Scaffolder tools are used to sort the input sequences into pre-computed orthologous gene family clusters, known as "gene family scaffolds" [5]. These scaffolds are built from objective classifications of protein sequences from high-quality plant genomes.
  • Output: A tabular file listing all input genes and their assigned orthogroups, complete with functional annotation information transferred from the scaffold.

• Downstream Evolutionary Analysis

  • Target Family Selection: Identify gene families of interest from the orthogroup assignments.
  • Multiple Sequence Alignment: For a selected orthogroup, use the MultipleSequenceAlignment tool to generate a codon-aware alignment of the member sequences [5].
  • Phylogenetic Inference: Use the GeneFamilyTree tool to reconstruct a phylogenetic tree from the alignment. This helps elucidate evolutionary relationships and identify orthologs and paralogs [5].
  • Inference of Duplication Events: The DuplicationInference tool can be used to identify large-scale (whole-genome) and small-scale duplication events within the gene family, providing critical context for the evolution of gene function [5].

Custom Scripts Workflow Protocol

This protocol is designed for researchers requiring analyses beyond the scope of standardized pipelines, such as incorporating novel clustering algorithms or specific evolutionary models.

3.2.1 Experimental Workflow

3.2.2 Step-by-Step Protocol

• Orthogroup Inference

  • Tool Recommendation: OrthoFinder [5].
  • Process: Run the tool on a combined set of protein sequences from your species of interest and a set of reference species to infer orthogroups and orthologs.

• Sequence Extraction and Curation

  • Process: Write a custom script (e.g., in Python or BioPerl) to extract the sequences belonging to the orthogroup of interest. Manually inspect and curate the sequence set, which may involve removing fragmented sequences or outliers.

• Multiple Sequence Alignment

  • Tool Recommendation: MAFFT for accuracy with large datasets or ClustalΩ.
  • Command Example: mafft --auto input_sequences.fa > alignment.aln

• Alignment Trimming and Quality Control

  • Tool Recommendation: TrimAl.
  • Process: Remove poorly aligned regions and columns with an excessive proportion of gaps to improve phylogenetic signal. trimal -in alignment.aln -out alignment_trimmed.aln -automated1

• Phylogenetic Inference

  • Tool Recommendation: IQ-TREE for its model selection and speed.
  • Process: Select the best-fit substitution model and reconstruct the tree with branch support. iqtree -s alignment_trimmed.aln -m MFP -bb 1000 -alrt 1000

• Evolutionary Analysis and Duplication Inference

  • Process: Use tree reconciliation software like Notung to map gene duplications and losses onto the species tree, or other custom scripts to calculate substitution rates (dN/dS) [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table lists key "research reagents" in the form of computational tools and resources that are essential for conducting gene family analysis in plants.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Gene Family Analysis

Item Name	Function / Application	Relevant Pipeline(s)
Galaxy Workbench	An open-source, web-based platform that makes command-line bioinformatics tools accessible to users without extensive computational expertise [5].	PlantTribes2, Custom Scripts
OrthoFinder	A highly accurate and scalable tool for inferring orthogroups and orthologs from whole-genome protein sequences [5].	Custom Scripts
MAFFT	A multiple sequence alignment program known for its high accuracy, especially with large numbers of sequences.	Custom Scripts
IQ-TREE	Software for efficient and effective phylogenetic inference using maximum likelihood, with sophisticated model selection.	Custom Scripts
Plant Genomic Databases (e.g., PLAZA, Gramene)	Integrative databases that provide pre-computed gene families, functional annotations, and comparative genomics tools for plants [5].	All (for background data & validation)
High-Quality Reference Genomes	Curated genome sequences and annotations from projects like the One Thousand Plant Transcriptomes Initiative, used as a evolutionary framework [81].	All
Conda/Bioconda	A package manager that simplifies the installation and version control of complex bioinformatics software and its dependencies.	PlantTribes2, Custom Scripts
Dp2mT	Dp2mT	Dp2mT is a negative control iron chelator for cancer and metastasis research. For Research Use Only. Not for human or diagnostic use.

The choice between PlantTribes2, specialized tools, and custom scripts is not a matter of identifying a single "best" tool, but rather of selecting the most appropriate tool for a specific research question and context. PlantTribes2 offers an optimal balance of accessibility, power, and standardization for a wide range of plant gene family studies, particularly those involving non-model species. Specialized tools and databases provide curated depth for specific clades. Custom scripts remain indispensable for pioneering novel methods or addressing highly specific evolutionary questions.

Future developments in the field will likely involve the tighter integration of gene family analysis with advanced genome engineering technologies. For instance, understanding gene family evolution can inform targets for CRISPR/Cas9-based functional validation and crop improvement [83] [84]. Furthermore, as the volume of genomic data continues to grow, scalable, user-friendly frameworks like PlantTribes2 will become increasingly vital in empowering biologists to unlock the genetic potential within the plant kingdom.

The rapid decline in sequencing costs has led to an explosion of genomic and transcriptomic data for a wide range of plant species. While this data holds immense potential for uncovering evolutionary relationships and gene functions, it presents significant computational challenges. Researchers conducting comparative analyses of plant gene families increasingly face obstacles related to data volume, computational intensity, and analytic complexity, requiring sophisticated strategies for resource management and workflow scaling [5].

This application note outlines structured approaches and practical protocols for managing computational resources and effectively scaling analyses to handle large-scale genomic datasets, with particular emphasis on plant gene family research.

Scalability Challenges in Large-Scale Analyses

Scaling computational analyses for large datasets introduces multiple interconnected challenges that impact research efficiency and outcomes.

Table 1: Key Scalability Challenges in Genomic Data Analysis

Challenge Category	Specific Manifestations	Impact on Research
Data Volume & Storage	Traditional storage solutions become inadequate; distributed storage systems required; data retrieval speeds slow without optimization [85].	Strain on storage infrastructure; delays in data accessibility for analysis.
Computational Resources	Training machine learning models demands significant resources; requires high-performance hardware (GPUs/TPUs); necessitates efficient data pipelines [85].	Extended processing times; increased operational costs; hardware limitations restrict analytic options.
Algorithm Complexity	Increased data leads to more features and higher dimensionality; risk of overfitting where models learn noise instead of signals [86] [87].	Reduced model generalizability; inefficient algorithms fail to complete in practical timeframes.
Training Time	Model training can require days or weeks for large datasets; delays deployment and increases costs [87].	Slows research iteration cycles; impedes rapid hypothesis testing.
Real-Time Processing	Need for low-latency data pipelines; requires robust stream processing frameworks [85].	Limitations in live data analysis applications; delays in insight generation.

The challenges of algorithm complexity and overfitting are particularly pertinent in gene family analyses, where models must distinguish true evolutionary signals from noise across large, multi-dimensional datasets [86] [87].

Figure 1: Scalability challenges flow from large datasets to research impacts.

Strategic Approaches to Resource Management

Computational Frameworks

Multiple computational strategies can address scalability challenges in genomic analyses:

• Distributed Computing: Frameworks like Apache Hadoop and Apache Spark distribute data and computation across multiple nodes, enabling parallel processing and significantly faster analysis of large datasets [86] [85]. These frameworks are particularly valuable for phylogenomic analyses that require processing across multiple reference genomes.

• Batch Processing: Dividing large datasets into smaller, manageable batches for incremental model training helps prevent overfitting and makes the training process more efficient [86]. Optimal batch size selection is crucial for balancing model performance and training speed.

• Online Learning: Also known as incremental learning, this approach trains models on one data point at a time, which is particularly useful when datasets are too large to fit into memory or when data arrives in continuous streams [86].

Data Optimization Techniques

• Feature Selection and Dimensionality Reduction: Identifying the most informative features and discarding irrelevant ones reduces computational burden. Techniques such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA) transform data into lower-dimensional spaces while preserving essential information [86].

• Data Sampling: Selecting representative subsets of data reduces computational requirements while maintaining analytical validity. For imbalanced datasets, techniques like SMOTE can generate synthetic samples to ensure all classes are adequately represented [86].

• Data Partitioning: Breaking large datasets into smaller parts distributed across multiple storage locations or nodes allows each part to be processed independently, reducing strain on individual resources [85].

Table 2: Scalability Solutions and Their Applications

Solution Approach	Implementation Methods	Use Cases in Gene Family Analysis
Parallel Computing	Divide tasks into sub-tasks running simultaneously on multiple processors [85].	Multiple sequence alignment; phylogenetic tree construction; homology searches.
Distributed Computing	Apache Hadoop; Apache Spark; cloud-based distributed systems [86] [85].	Genome-scale orthologous group identification; cross-species comparative analyses.
Batch Processing	Divide datasets into smaller batches; train models incrementally [86].	Large-scale gene model training; processing multi-species transcriptome data.
Data Partitioning	Range-based sharding; hashed sharding [86].	Distributing BLAST searches; partitioning sequence databases by taxonomic group.
Feature Selection	Principal Component Analysis (PCA); feature importance ranking [86].	Reducing dimensionality in multi-species expression data; identifying informative evolutionary features.

Application Protocol: Scalable Gene Family Analysis with PlantTribes2

The following protocol provides a detailed methodology for conducting scalable comparative analysis of plant gene families using the PlantTribes2 framework, which is specifically designed to address computational challenges in plant genomics [5].

Experimental Protocol

Objective: To perform a scalable, comparative analysis of gene families across multiple plant species using the PlantTribes2 framework.

Background: PlantTribes2 is a gene family analysis framework that uses objective classifications of annotated protein sequences from sequenced genomes for comparative and evolutionary studies. The core of PlantTribes2 analyses are gene family scaffolds—clusters of orthologous and paralogous sequences from specified sets of inferred protein sequences [5].

Figure 2: PlantTribes2 scalable gene family analysis workflow.

Input Data Preparation and Preprocessing

• Data Collection:

  • Gather annotated protein sequences from high-quality reference genomes relevant to your plant taxa of interest.
  • Prepare user-provided data in FASTA format (annotated protein sequences or transcriptome assemblies).
  • For transcriptome data, ensure proper assembly and coding sequence prediction.

• Data Quality Assessment:

  • Evaluate sequence completeness using benchmarked universal single-copy orthologs (BUSCO).
  • Filter low-quality sequences and potential contaminants.
  • Normalize sequence identifiers to ensure compatibility across datasets.

• Resource Allocation:

  • For datasets exceeding 10 GB, allocate distributed computing resources.
  • Configure cluster or cloud environment with sufficient memory (minimum 32 GB RAM for moderate-sized analyses).
  • Set up temporary storage space for intermediate files (recommended: 100 GB+ free space).

Gene Family Clustering and Annotation

• Orthologous Group Assignment:

  • Use PlantTribes2 AssignmentTool to sort query sequences into pre-computed orthologous gene family scaffolds.
  • For novel gene families, use ClusteringTool with optimal parameters for your taxonomic scope.
  • Implement parallel processing by dividing input data into batches for large datasets.

• Functional Annotation:

  • Transfer functional annotations from reference scaffolds to query sequences.
  • Identify domain architecture using integrated tools (e.g., Pfam, InterProScan).
  • Generate gene ontology (GO) term annotations for comparative functional analysis.

Evolutionary Analyses

• Multiple Sequence Alignment:

  • For each gene family of interest, perform multiple sequence alignment using AlignmentTool.
  • For large families (>100 sequences), use distributed alignment algorithms.
  • Trim alignments to remove poorly aligned regions.

• Phylogenetic Inference:

  • Construct gene family trees using maximum likelihood or Bayesian methods.
  • For computational efficiency with large families, use rapid bootstrap algorithms.
  • Implement model testing to select optimal substitution models.

• Evolutionary Rate Analysis:

  • Calculate synonymous (dS) and non-synonymous (dN) substitution rates using EvolutionaryRateTool.
  • Identify signatures of positive selection across lineages.

• Gene Duplication Inference:

  • Reconstruct large-scale duplication events using DuplicationInferenceTool.
  • Map duplication events to species phylogeny to identify lineage-specific expansions.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Scalable Gene Family Analysis

Tool/Resource	Type	Function in Analysis
PlantTribes2	Analysis Framework	Gene family classification, phylogenetic analysis, and evolutionary inference [5].
Apache Spark	Distributed Computing	Large-scale data processing across clustered systems [86] [85].
Galaxy Workbench	Web-Based Platform	Accessible interface for executing tools without command-line expertise [5].
Google BigQuery	Data Warehouse	Quick analysis of massive datasets using SQL queries [85].
Amazon S3	Cloud Storage	Scalable storage for datasets of any size with high availability [85].
Kubernetes	Container Management	Automated deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications [85].
PLAZA	Database	Resource for pre-computed plant gene families and functional annotations [5].
OrthoFinder	Orthogroup Inference	Algorithm for accurate orthogroup inference across multiple species [5].

Implementation Considerations and Best Practices

Resource Optimization Strategies

Effective management of computational resources requires careful planning and implementation:

• Model Selection: Consider using simpler models such as linear models, decision trees, or Naive Bayes classifiers that can scale well to large datasets and offer satisfactory results, especially when dealing with high-dimensional data or limited computational resources [86].

• Cloud Computing: Leverage platforms like AWS, Google Cloud Platform (GCP), and Microsoft Azure that offer scalable infrastructure for data storage, processing, and analytics. These platforms provide flexibility, allowing organizations to scale resources up or down as needed [85].

• Continuous Monitoring and Auto-Scaling: Implement continuous monitoring of data pipelines, model performance, and resource utilization to identify bottlenecks and inefficiencies. Utilize auto-scaling mechanisms in cloud environments to adjust resources based on workload demands [85].

Data Management and Quality Assurance

• Standardized Protocols: Develop standardized procedures for data acquisition and processing to ensure reproducibility and comparability of results across experiments and laboratories [88].

• Data Integrity: Ensure data quality through cleaning, preprocessing, and addressing inconsistencies. This is crucial for building reliable models that can generalize effectively to real-world scenarios [86].

• Metadata Documentation: Maintain comprehensive documentation of experimental parameters, including versions of software tools, reference databases, and analysis parameters to ensure reproducibility [88].

Effective management of computational resources and implementation of scaling strategies are essential for contemporary comparative analysis of plant gene families. By leveraging distributed computing frameworks, optimized data management practices, and specialized tools like PlantTribes2, researchers can overcome the challenges posed by large genomic datasets. The protocols outlined in this application note provide a roadmap for conducting scalable, reproducible analyses that can yield novel insights into plant evolution and gene function. As genomic data continues to grow exponentially, these scalable approaches will become increasingly critical for advancing plant genomics research.

The study of complex gene families is pivotal for understanding plant genome evolution, domestication, and the development of novel agronomic traits. Two major sources of genomic complexity are tandemly duplicated genes and transposable elements (TEs). Tandem duplicates arise from the duplication of genomic regions in close proximity, often leading to gene family expansion and functional diversification. Transposable elements are mobile DNA sequences that can insert into new genomic locations, creating structural variations and regulating gene expression. This application note provides detailed protocols and comparative analyses to address the challenges posed by these genomic features within the context of plant gene family research.

Comparative Genomics of Tandem Duplicates and Transposable Elements

Genome-Wide Identification and Characteristics

Comprehensive genome-wide studies in model plants reveal distinct patterns of tandem duplicates and transposable elements. In rice, tandemly duplicated genes constitute approximately 15.1% of annotated non-TE genes, while segmentally duplicated genes account for 16.0%. Together, they represent nearly one-third of the rice genome's functional content [89]. The distribution of these duplicates across chromosomes is non-random, with tandem genes often clustering near chromosome ends, while segmental genes show preferential localization to specific chromosomal arms [89].

Transposable elements demonstrate even more dramatic genomic presence. In Gardenia jasminoides, TEs comprise approximately 54.0% of the genome, with Long Terminal Repeat (LTR) retrotransposons being the dominant class (62.2% of all TEs) [90]. Comparative analysis between Arabidopsis thaliana and Brassica oleracea indicates that TE amplification, particularly of DNA transposons, significantly contributes to genome expansion in related species [91].

Table 1: Genomic Prevalence of Tandem Duplicates and Transposable Elements in Plant Species

Species	Tandem Duplicates	Segmental Duplicates	Transposable Elements	Key Findings	Citation
Rice (Oryza sativa)	5,888 genes (15.1%)	6,231 genes (16.0%)	Not specified	29.5% of non-TE genes arose from tandem/segmental duplication	[89]
Arabidopsis thaliana	Variable by family	Variable by family	Not specified	Gene family sizes follow a power-law distribution	[92]
Gardenia jasminoides	Not specified	Not specified	54.0% of genome	62.2% of TEs are LTR elements	[90]
Brassica oleracea	Not specified	Not specified	Major component	TE amplification drives genome expansion compared to A. thaliana	[91]

Functional Divergence and Evolutionary Dynamics

Tandem duplicates and transposable elements exhibit distinct functional biases and evolutionary constraints. Tandemly duplicated genes in rice are significantly enriched for specific protein domains, including protein kinase domains (PF00069), leucine-rich repeats (PF00560), and pentatricopeptide repeats (PF01535), which are associated with stress response, signaling, and regulatory functions [89]. Expression divergence between tandem duplicates is influenced by promoter sequence differentiation and variations in DNA methylation patterns [89].

Transposable elements contribute to functional innovation through several mechanisms. In rice, TE insertions are significantly associated with expression changes in nearly 25% of differentially expressed genes between landraces and improved varieties [93]. Specific TE families, including Ty3-retrotransposons, LTR Copia, and Helitron elements, show expanded copy numbers in improved rice varieties compared to landraces, suggesting their role in agricultural improvement [93]. A compelling example of convergent evolution driven by tandem duplication is illustrated by the independent emergence of caffeine biosynthesis in coffee and crocin biosynthesis in gardenia, both within the Rubiaceae family [90].

Table 2: Functional and Evolutionary Characteristics of Genomic Elements

Characteristic	Tandem Duplicates	Transposable Elements	Citation
Common Functional Domains	Protein kinase, Leucine Rich Repeat, Pentatricopeptide repeat	N/A (Varied by family and insertion site)	[89]
Expression Regulation	Influenced by promoter differentiation and DNA methylation	Can create novel enhancers/promoters; 24.7% of expression divergence in rice improvement	[89] [93]
Evolutionary Impact	Lineage-specific expansion for environmental adaptation	Drive structural variation and selective sweeps; contribute to domestication	[90] [93]
Key Example	N-methyltransferase genes for caffeine in coffee	CCD4a gene for crocin synthesis in gardenia	[90]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Genome-Wide Identification of Tandemly Duplicated Genes

Principle: This protocol identifies tandem gene arrays through systematic analysis of genome annotation files, based on the physical proximity and transcriptional orientation of homologous genes [89].

Materials:

• Genome Annotation File: GFF3 or GTF format from sources like MSU Rice Genome Annotation Project [89]
• Protein Sequence File: FASTA format of predicted proteome
• Computational Tools: BLAST+ suite, custom Perl/Python scripts for parsing
• Hardware: Standard workstation for small genomes; high-performance computing cluster for large genomes

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Download and parse the genome annotation file. Filter out genes encoding transposons and retrotransposons to focus on non-TE protein-coding genes.
• Homology Search: Perform an all-against-all BLASTP search of the protein sequences using an E-value cutoff of 10^-10. Retain pairs with significant similarity for further analysis.
• Tandem Array Identification:
  • Scan the genomic coordinates of homologous gene pairs.
  • Define two genes as tandem duplicates if they are located within 100 kilobases of each other on the same chromosome and are separated by no more than 10 non-homologous intervening genes.
  • Record the physical distance and relative transcriptional orientation (head-to-head, head-to-tail, tail-to-tail) for each tandem pair.
• Family Clustering: Apply single-linkage clustering to group all interconnected tandem homologs into distinct tandem arrays.
• Validation and Curation: Manually inspect random subsets of predicted tandem arrays by reviewing genomic context in a browser and verifying homology through phylogenetic analysis.

Protocol 2: Ultra-Sensitive Detection of Transposable Element Insertions Using TEd-Seq

Principle: Transposable Element Display Sequencing (TEd-Seq) leverages target amplification of TE extremities and suppressor PCR to detect non-reference TE insertions with high specificity and sensitivity, enabling identification of insertions present at frequencies as low as 1 in 250,000 within a DNA sample [94].

Materials:

• DNA Samples: High-quality genomic DNA (100-200 ng per sample)
• Enzymes: Fragmentation enzyme (e.g., dsDNA Fragmentase), T4 DNA Ligase, high-fidelity DNA polymerase
• Specialized Adapters: Asymmetric Illumina forked-adapters with a 3' dideoxy nucleotide on the short arm
• Primers: TE-specific primers and barcoded adapter primers
• Equipment: Sonication device (e.g., Covaris), thermocycler, Illumina sequencer, or Nanopore sequencer for long-read validation

Procedure:

• DNA Fragmentation: Fragment genomic DNA by sonication or enzymatic treatment to produce 200-500 bp fragments.
• End-Repair and A-Tailing: Perform end-repair and dA-tailing of fragmented DNA using standard kits to prepare fragments for adapter ligation.
• Adapter Ligation: Ligate custom asymmetric forked-adapters to the A-tailed fragments. The adapter design prevents amplification from adapter-only fragments.
• Primary PCR: Perform the first PCR amplification using a primer specific to the target TE sequence and a primer that binds the adapter's long arm. This step generates templates containing both the TE site and adapter sequence.
• Nested PCR: Conduct a second round of PCR using a nested TE-specific primer (closer to the TE edge) containing the P5 Illumina sequence and a barcoded adapter primer containing the P7 sequence. This increases specificity and allows sample multiplexing.
• Library QC and Sequencing: Validate library quality using Bioanalyzer and quantify by qPCR. Pool multiplexed libraries and sequence on Illumina or Nanopore platforms.
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Process sequenced reads through a dedicated pipeline to eliminate PCR duplicates, select reads containing the target TE sequence, and map insertion sites to the reference genome.

Figure 1: Workflow for Transposable Element Display Sequencing (TEd-Seq). This protocol enables ultra-sensitive detection of non-reference TE insertions across multiple families [94].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Studying Complex Gene Families

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Example Sources/Formats	Citation
Pan-Genome Data Sets	Provides a comprehensive catalog of genetic variation, including SVs and TEs, across diverse accessions	Rice super pan-genome (251 accessions); species-specific collections	[93]
Specialized Bioinformatics Software	Identification and evolutionary analysis of tandem duplicates and TE insertions	OrthoParaMap; DiagHunter; TEd-seq pipeline; ReD Tandem	[92] [94] [95]
Asymmetric Forked-Adapters	Key component of TEd-seq for specific amplification of TE-flanking regions; enables suppression PCR	Custom DNA oligos with 3' dideoxy nucleotide modification	[94]
TE-Specific Primers	Amplification of specific transposable element families for display methods or expression analysis	Designed based on conserved terminal sequences of LTR, LINE, or DNA transposons	[94]
Functional Annotation Databases	Functional enrichment analysis of duplicated genes; domain architecture characterization	Pfam; Gene Ontology (GO); MSU Rice Genome Annotation	[89] [92]

Application Notes and Data Interpretation

Case Study: Evolutionary Dynamics of Caffeine and Crocin Pathways

A compelling example of how tandem duplications drive metabolic innovation comes from comparative analysis within the Rubiaceae family. In Coffea canephora (coffee), the caffeine biosynthesis pathway evolved through recent tandem duplications of N-methyltransferase (NMT) genes. Conversely, in Gardenia jasminoides, the first dedicated gene in the crocin biosynthesis pathway, GjCCD4a, also originated through recent tandem duplication. This demonstrates how similar genetic mechanisms (tandem duplication) in related species can lead to divergent evolutionary outcomes and distinct specialized metabolic pathways [90].

Technical Considerations for TEd-Seq Implementation

When implementing the TEd-seq protocol, several factors are critical for success:

• Primer Design: TE-specific primers should be designed to target conserved regions near TE termini. Including different numbers of spacer nucleotides before the P5 adapter in nested primers significantly improves library diversity and sequencing quality [94].
• Multiplexing Capability: The use of barcoded adapter primers enables pooling of hundreds of samples in a single sequencing run, making large-scale population studies feasible and cost-effective (approximately 12 EUR per sample's library) [94].
• Sensitivity Limitations: While TEd-seq detects germline insertions with high sensitivity, somatic insertions present at very low frequencies may require deeper sequencing or alternative validation methods.

Figure 2: Divergent Evolution of Specialized Metabolism via Tandem Duplication. Recent tandem duplications in different genera of the Rubiaceae family led to independent evolution of distinct secondary metabolic pathways [90].

The integrated analysis of tandem duplicates and transposable elements provides powerful insights into plant genome evolution and functional diversification. Tandem duplications frequently expand families of stress-responsive and regulatory genes, while transposable elements drive structural variation and create novel regulatory networks. The protocols outlined here—for genome-wide identification of tandem duplicates and ultra-sensitive detection of TE insertions—provide researchers with robust methodologies to explore these dynamic components of plant genomes. As genomic technologies advance, applying these approaches across diverse plant species will further illuminate the mechanisms by which complex gene families contribute to phenotypic diversity and adaptive evolution, ultimately informing crop improvement strategies.

In the field of plant genomics, the comparative analysis of gene families is fundamental to understanding evolutionary processes, gene function, and phenotypic diversity [96]. This application note details standardized protocols for three critical computational procedures: model alignment using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), phylogenetic tree construction, and orthology inference. These methods are essential for researchers investigating the complex genomic histories of plant species, which are often shaped by whole-genome duplication events and other forms of complex genomic histories [96]. We provide specific parameter configurations, experimental workflows, and reagent solutions to ensure reproducibility and robustness in plant gene family studies.

Parameter Tuning for Model Alignment with DPO

Alignment ensures large language models (LLMs) and other computational models behave safely and generate outputs aligned with human preferences and specific task requirements [97]. In bioinformatics, alignment techniques can optimize models for tasks like literature mining, gene function annotation, and generating scientific summaries.

Key Parameters and Best Practices for DPO

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has emerged as a stable and efficient alternative to reinforcement learning methods for model alignment [98]. It uses a dataset of paired preferences (preferred and dispreferred responses) to directly optimize a model using a simple loss function.

Table: Key Hyperparameters for DPO Alignment

Hyperparameter	Recommended Range	Effect on Performance	Considerations for Plant Genomics
Beta (β)	0.01 - 0.9	Controls the deviation from the reference model. Lower values (e.g., 0.01) may be needed for fine-grained adjustments [98].	Essential for maintaining factual accuracy in gene function descriptions.
Learning Rate	5.0e-7 (Cosine scheduler)	Critical for stable training and convergence [98].	Preovershooting when adapting general models to specialized plant genomic data.
Loss Type	'sigmoid' (for DPO)	Standard loss function for DPO [98].
Batch Size	8 (per device)	Balances memory constraints and training stability [98].	Adjust based on model and GPU memory.
Number of Epochs	1	Prevents overfitting on the preference dataset [98].	Sufficient for many alignment tasks.

Experimental Protocol: DPO Alignment for a Scientific Assistant Model

Objective: Align a base LLM (e.g., a 7B parameter model like Mistral-7b) to generate helpful and harmless responses for plant genomics queries.

Materials:

• Base pre-trained or instruction-tuned model (e.g., Mistral-7b) [99].
• Preference dataset (e.g., HH-RLHF or a custom-curated dataset of preferred/rejected scientific answers) [99].
• Computational resources (GPU with >16GB VRAM recommended).

Procedure:

• Dataset Preparation: Format your dataset into a JSON structure containing prompts, chosen responses, and rejected responses. For scientific alignment, this could involve questions about gene families and verified correct/incorrect answers.
• Configuration: Set the hyperparameters as detailed in the table above. Use a cosine learning rate scheduler with a warmup ratio of 0.1 [98].
• Training: Utilize the DPOTrainer from the TRL library. The core DPO loss is calculated as: L_DPO = -log(σ(β * log(π_θ(y_w | x) / π_ref(y_w | x) - β * log(π_θ(y_l | x) / π_ref(y_l | x))) where Ï€_ref is the reference model, π_θ is the policy model, and (y_w, y_l) are the winning and losing responses, respectively [98].
• Evaluation: Evaluate the aligned model on benchmarks like MT-Bench for general chat capability and a custom benchmark of plant genomics questions to assess factual accuracy and helpfulness [99].

Parameter Tuning for Phylogenetic Tree Construction

Building accurate phylogenetic trees is a cornerstone of comparative genomics, enabling researchers to infer evolutionary relationships among gene families and species [100].

Algorithm Selection and Parameter Guidance

The choice of tree-building method depends on the research question, dataset size, and computational resources.

Table: Comparison of Phylogenetic Tree Construction Methods

Method	Principle	Best For	Key Parameters & Guidance
Neighbor-Joining (NJ)	Distance-based, minimizes total branch length [100].	Large datasets, quick initial trees [100].	Distance metric: Use Jukes-Cantor for nucleotides, Poisson for amino acids. Fast and efficient for initial exploration.
Maximum Parsimony (MP)	Minimizes the total number of evolutionary changes [100].	Datasets with high sequence similarity and few changes [100].	Search algorithm: Use heuristic searches (SPR, NNI) for >20 taxa. Can be misled by homoplasy.
Maximum Likelihood (ML)	Finds the tree with the highest probability given the data and evolutionary model [100].	Most cases, provides a robust statistical framework [100].	Model selection: Use ModelTest (DNA) or ProtTest (proteins) to find the best-fit model (e.g., GTR+G+I). Branch support: Use bootstrapping (≥1000 replicates).
Bayesian Inference (BI)	Estimates the posterior probability of tree topology using MCMC sampling [100].	Complex models, incorporating prior knowledge [100].	MCMC settings: Generations (≥1M), sampling frequency (100-1000), burn-in (10-25%). Check for convergence (ESS > 200). Substitution model: Match to data (e.g., WAG for proteins).

Experimental Protocol: Building a Species Tree from a Gene Family

Objective: Construct a robust species tree for Brassicaceae using a set of single-copy orthologous genes.

Materials:

• Protein or nucleotide sequences of single-copy orthologs identified by OrthoFinder [96] [101].
• Multiple sequence alignment software (e.g., MAFFT).
• Trimming tool (e.g., trimAl).
• Tree inference software (e.g., RAxML for ML, MrBayes for BI).

Procedure:

• Sequence Alignment: Align the amino acid sequences for each ortholog using MAFFT with the --auto parameter.
• Alignment Trimming: Trim unreliable regions from the alignment using trimAl with the -automated1 option to remove positions with many gaps [100].
• Concatenation: Concatenate all trimmed alignments into a "supermatrix" for a combined analysis.
• Model Selection: Use ProtTest to determine the best-fit amino acid substitution model for the supermatrix (e.g., LG+G+I).
• Tree Inference (ML Example): Run RAxML: raxmlHPC -s supermatrix.phy -n tree1 -m PROTGAMMALG -p 12345 -# 100 -f a -x 12345. This performs a rapid bootstrap analysis (100 replicates) and searches for the best-scoring ML tree.
• Tree Inference (BI Example): Run MrBayes. In the command block: begin mrbayes; set autoclose=yes; prset aamodelpr=mixed; mcmcp ngen=1000000 samplefreq=1000 printfreq=1000 nchains=4 savebrlens=yes filename=Brassica; mcmc; sump; sumt; end;
• Visualization: Visualize the final, annotated tree using software like FigTree or the R package ggtree.

Parameter Tuning for Orthology Inference

Accurate inference of orthologous genes—genes separated by a speciation event—is critical for functional annotation and comparative genomics across plant species [96] [28].

Algorithm Performance and Selection

Different orthology inference algorithms exhibit varying performance, especially in plant families with complex genomic histories involving polyploidy, such as Brassicaceae [96].

Table: Orthology Inference Algorithm Performance on Brassicaceae

Algorithm	Method	Key Parameters	Performance Notes
OrthoFinder	Phylogenetic tree-based inference [96] [101].	Allows selection of sequence alignment (e.g., DIAMOND) and tree inference software.	High accuracy, infers rooted gene trees and species trees. Most accurate on Quest for Orthologs benchmark [101]. Recommended for initial predictions [96].
SonicParanoid	Graph-based (using MCL), fast [96].	Relies on pairwise sequence comparisons and MCL inflation parameter.	Helpful for initial predictions, but does not incorporate phylogenetic information [96].
Broccoli	Tree-based, uses network analysis [96].	Similar input to OrthoFinder, focuses on building orthology networks.	Helpful for initial predictions; generally produces results similar to OrthoFinder and SonicParanoid on diploid sets [96].
OrthNet	Incorporates synteny information [96].	Uses MCL and gene colinearity data.	Results can be outliers compared to other methods but provides detailed colinearity information [96].

Experimental Protocol: Inferring Orthogroups Across Brassicaceae

Objective: Identify orthogroups across eight Brassicaceae species, including diploids and polyploids.

Materials:

• Proteome files (in FASTA format) for all target species.
• Orthology inference software (e.g., OrthoFinder).
• High-performance computing cluster (for large analyses).

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Gather proteome files for all species. Ensure consistent and high-quality gene annotations.
• Running OrthoFinder: Execute OrthoFinder with the following command to leverage parallel processing and specific sequence search tools: orthofinder -f /path/to/proteomes -t 32 -a 32 -S diamond -M msa -A mafft -T iqtree. This command uses 32 CPU threads, the DIAMOND tool for fast sequence search, and then performs multiple sequence alignment (MAFFT) and gene tree inference (IQ-TREE) for a comprehensive analysis.
• Output Analysis: OrthoFinder outputs include:
  • Orthogroups.tsv: The list of genes in each orthogroup.
  • Orthogroups_SingleCopyOrthologues.txt: List of single-copy orthologs, ideal for species tree construction.
  • Gene_Trees/: Directory containing rooted gene trees for each orthogroup.
• Benchmarking: For critical analyses, run multiple inference algorithms (e.g., OrthoFinder, SonicParanoid, Broccoli) and compare the orthogroup compositions to identify robust, consensus orthogroups [96]. Fine-tune results by inspecting gene trees for specific gene families of interest.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Computational Tools for Comparative Plant Genomics

Research Reagent	Type	Function	Application in Plant Gene Families
OrthoFinder [96] [101]	Software	Infers orthogroups and gene trees from proteomes.	Identifying conserved gene families and single-copy orthologs across Brassicaceae.
DIAMOND	Software	Ultra-fast protein sequence alignment.	Used by OrthoFinder for the initial all-vs-all sequence comparison.
RAxML [100]	Software	Infers maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees.	Constructing species trees from concatenated single-copy orthologs.
MrBayes [100]	Software	Infers phylogenetic trees using Bayesian inference.	Estimating posterior probabilities for tree topologies.
MAFFT	Software	Performs multiple sequence alignment.	Aligning nucleotide or protein sequences of orthologous genes.
R with ape, phangorn, ggtree [100]	Software/Environment	Statistical computing and graphics for phylogenetics.	Tree visualization, comparative analyses, and custom plot generation.
HH-RLHF / BeaverTails [99]	Dataset	Curated datasets for model alignment (helpfulness/harmlessness).	Aligning language models for scientific query-answering in genomics.
DPO/IPO/KTO in TRL [98]	Algorithm/Library	Methods for direct preference optimization of models.	Fine-tuning base LLMs to follow specific scientific instruction formats.

From Data to Discovery: Validating Findings and Drawing Biological Insights

The comparative analysis of plant gene families is fundamental to understanding the genetic basis of development, stress adaptation, and evolutionary diversification. Robust validation strategies are crucial for moving beyond simple sequence identification to confirming functional predictions and biological relevance. This protocol details a comprehensive framework that integrates two powerful, complementary approaches: transcriptomic evidence analysis and domain architecture characterization. Transcriptomic data provides empirical evidence of gene expression patterns across tissues, developmental stages, and experimental conditions, allowing researchers to connect sequence information with biological context. Domain architecture analysis offers structural insights into protein function, evolutionary relationships, and functional diversification within gene families. Together, these methods form a robust validation pipeline that significantly strengthens conclusions drawn from comparative genomic studies.

The strength of this integrated approach lies in its ability to generate convergent lines of evidence. Where transcriptomic data can suggest when and where a gene is active, domain architecture can provide mechanistic insights into how the encoded protein might function. This multi-angle validation is particularly valuable in plant genomics, where gene families often expand through duplication events and subsequently diverge in function. The protocols outlined below are designed to be broadly applicable across plant species and gene families, with specific examples drawn from recent studies to illustrate key principles and potential outcomes.

Transcriptomic Evidence Analysis Protocols

Experimental Design for Transcriptomic Validation

Transcriptomic validation requires careful experimental design to ensure biologically meaningful results. For gene family studies, RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) approaches should capture expression patterns across multiple dimensions: (1) developmental timecourses to identify genes involved in specific growth phases; (2) tissue-specific expression to pinpoint spatial regulation; (3) stress treatments to characterize responsive gene members; and (4) genotypic variations to detect presence-absence expression variation. Experimental replicates are essential—include at least three biological replicates per condition to account for natural variation and enable statistical testing. When studying non-model plants, de novo transcriptome assembly may be necessary, requiring higher sequencing depth (typically 30-50 million reads per sample) compared to reference-based approaches [32].

For cell-type-specific resolution, single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) provides unprecedented resolution. The protoplasting process for plant scRNA-seq requires optimization to minimize stress responses that might alter expression profiles. Incorporate unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) to account for amplification biases and batch effects. Recent studies have successfully applied scRNA-seq to Arabidopsis roots, leaves, and shoot apical meristems, identifying 47 distinct cell types through integration of 63 datasets [102] [103]. This approach enables construction of cell-type-specific gene regulatory networks and identification of key regulators acting in a coordinated manner.

Data Processing and Normalization Workflow

Raw RNA-seq data requires rigorous processing before expression analysis. Begin with quality control using FastQC to assess sequence quality, followed by adapter trimming and quality filtering with Trimmomatic or similar tools. For reference-based alignment, tools like HISAT2 or STAR provide efficient mapping to reference genomes. For non-model species without reference genomes, perform de novo assembly using Trinity or SOAPdenovo-Trans, followed by transcript quantification. Read counting for gene-level analysis can be performed using featureCounts or HTSeq [104].

Normalization is critical for cross-sample comparisons. The transcripts per million (TPM) method accounts for both gene length and sequencing depth, making it suitable for within-sample and between-sample comparisons. For differential expression analysis, methods like DESeq2 or edgeR that use raw counts and incorporate sample-specific normalization factors are recommended. These tools implement statistical models that account for biological variability and provide false discovery rate (FDR) corrections for multiple testing. When analyzing time-course data, consider specialized methods like DESeq2's likelihood ratio test or impulse model-based approaches that capture dynamic expression patterns rather than simple pairwise comparisons [105].

Expression Pattern Analysis and Visualization

Characterize expression patterns across experimental conditions to identify functionally relevant gene family members. Cluster analysis using methods like k-means or hierarchical clustering groups genes with similar expression profiles, potentially revealing co-regulated genes or functional modules. Dimensionality reduction techniques such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA), t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE), or Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) help visualize global expression patterns and identify outliers or batch effects [104].

For comparative analysis across species, identify orthologous gene pairs using tools like OrthoFinder or InParanoid, then compare their expression patterns in similar tissues or conditions. Conservation of expression patterns between orthologs suggests conserved function, while divergence may indicate functional specialization. Integrate expression data with Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis to identify functional themes in co-expressed gene sets. Visualization through heatmaps, violin plots, and expression trajectory plots effectively communicates complex expression patterns across gene families and experimental conditions [32].

Table 1: Key Analytical Tools for Transcriptomic Data Analysis

Tool Name	Primary Function	Key Parameters	Application Context
DESeq2	Differential expression analysis	Fit type, beta prior, independent filtering	Identifying significantly regulated genes
edgeR	Differential expression analysis	Dispersion estimation, trend method	Experiments with limited replicates
OrthoFinder	Orthogroup inference	Inflation value, sequence alignment method	Cross-species expression comparison
ClusterProfiler	GO enrichment analysis	pAdjustMethod, pvalueCutoff, qvalueCutoff	Functional annotation of co-expressed genes
WGCNA	Co-expression network analysis	Network type, power parameter, minModuleSize	Identifying expression modules and hub genes
Monocle3	Single-cell trajectory analysis	Reduction method, cluster method	Developmental pseudotime ordering

Domain Architecture Analysis Methods

Domain Identification and Annotation Pipeline

Domain architecture analysis begins with comprehensive identification of functional domains within protein sequences. Utilize multiple complementary resources to maximize sensitivity: Pfam for curated domain families, InterProScan for integrated search across multiple databases, and CDD for conserved domain annotations. For plant-specific gene families, consider specialized resources like PlantTribes2, which provides pre-computed gene family clusters and functional annotations tailored to plant genomes [5]. The analysis of bZIP genes in Solanaceae species demonstrated that approximately 11% of gene models required re-annotation after manual curation, highlighting the importance of this refinement step [106].

Execute domain searching with carefully optimized parameters. For HMMER-based searches against Pfam, use an E-value cutoff of 1e-5 for initial identification, followed by manual verification of borderline hits. For motif discovery, MEME Suite can identify conserved motifs outside known domain boundaries with parameters set to zoops mode (zero or one occurrence per sequence), minimum width of 6, and maximum width of 50 amino acids. Identify statistically enriched motifs using Fisher's exact test with multiple testing correction. After identification, validate domain boundaries through multiple sequence alignment with closely related sequences and structural data when available [106].

Architecture Comparison and Classification System

Classify domain architectures into systematic categories to facilitate comparative analysis. The basic classification system should distinguish: (1) Single-domain proteins containing only the defining domain; (2) Multi-domain proteins with additional functional domains; (3) Fusion proteins with domains typically found in separate proteins; and (4) Truncated proteins with partial domain loss. In the Solanaceae bZIP family, two major architectural types were identified based on the presence or absence of integrated domains additional to the core bZIP domain, with these architectural differences correlating with functional diversification [106].

Quantify architectural diversity using metrics such as architecture richness (number of distinct architectures), architectural divergence (number of species sharing an architecture), and domain combination patterns. Visualize architectural relationships using bipartite networks connecting genes to domains, or alluvial diagrams showing architecture distribution across phylogenetic groups. These visualizations help identify lineage-specific architectural innovations and conserved architectural themes. For large gene families, consider dimensionality reduction techniques applied to domain presence-absence matrices to visualize architectural landscape [106].

Evolutionary Analysis of Domain Architecture

Reconstruct the evolutionary history of domain architectures by mapping architectural features onto robust phylogenetic trees. Use maximum likelihood methods (RAxML, IQ-TREE) with appropriate substitution models to generate gene trees, then reconcile with species trees to identify duplication and loss events. Architecture mapping reveals patterns of domain gain, loss, and rearrangement throughout evolution. Positive selection analysis (PAML, HyPhy) on specific domain boundaries can identify sites under diversifying selection that may drive functional innovation [32].

Correlate architectural changes with major evolutionary events such as whole genome duplications, which are common in plant genomes. The pan-genome analysis of JAZ genes in Camellia sinensis revealed that positive selection acted on CsJAZ1, CsJAZ8, and CsJAZ9 during tea domestication, with structural variants significantly impacting gene expression and structural integrity [32]. Such integrated analysis connects architectural evolution with functional and phenotypic consequences, providing powerful insights into gene family diversification.

Integrated Validation Applications

Concordance Analysis Framework

The integrated validation approach assesses concordance between transcriptomic patterns and domain architecture features to generate high-confidence functional predictions. Develop a scoring system that weights evidence from both approaches: genes with conserved architecture and expression patterns typical of the family likely retain ancestral function; genes with divergent architecture and distinct expression may represent neofunctionalization; genes with conserved architecture but divergent expression may have undergone subfunctionalization. This framework proved powerful in the bZIP family analysis, where the two architectural types showed distinct expression responses to abiotic stresses [106].

Statistical assessment of concordance strengthens validation. Apply Fisher's exact test to determine whether specific domain architectures associate with particular expression clusters more frequently than expected by chance. For time-series expression data, dynamic time warping algorithms can quantify similarity between expression trajectories of architecturally similar genes. Mantel tests can correlate architectural distance matrices with expression distance matrices to assess overall structure-function relationships within the gene family. These quantitative assessments transform subjective observations into statistically robust validation [105] [106].

Case Study: bZIP Gene Family in Solanaceae

A comprehensive study of bZIP genes in nine Solanaceae species illustrates the power of integrated validation. Researchers re-annotated 935 bZIP genes, identifying two major architectural types based on the presence of integrated domains alongside the core bZIP domain. Transcriptomic analysis under abiotic stress revealed putative functional diversity between these architectural types. Genes without integrated domains showed more specialized expression patterns, while those with additional domains displayed broader expression across tissues and conditions. This architectural classification explained more expression variation than traditional phylogenetic grouping alone [106].

The integrated analysis revealed how structural features correlate with functional specialization. Motif analysis indicated that the two architectural types had distinct sequence compositions adjacent to the bZIP domain. Phylogenetic analysis showed that genes with different architectures had distinct evolutionary trajectories. Expression analysis connected these architectural differences to stress-responsive expression patterns in pepper and tomato. This multi-layered validation provided strong evidence for the functional significance of domain architecture variation in this important transcription factor family [106].

Case Study: JAZ Gene Pan-genome Analysis

The pan-genome analysis of JAZ genes in tea plants (Camellia sinensis) demonstrates integrated validation at population scale. Analysis of 22 high-quality genomes identified 21 JAZ genes exhibiting substantial presence-absence variation, classified as core, near-core, dispensable, and private genes. Transcriptomic analysis across four tissues revealed consistently high expression of six JAZ genes (CsJAZ1, CsJAZ2, CsJAZ6, CsJAZ9, CsJAZ13, and CsJAZ14), suggesting fundamental roles. Positive selection analysis identified CsJAZ1, CsJAZ8, and CsJAZ9 as undergoing adaptive evolution during domestication [32].

Structural variants significantly impacted both gene expression and protein integrity, with CsJAZ4, CsJAZ9, and CsJAZ12 showing differential expression when affected by structural variants. This direct connection between structural variation, domain architecture, and expression patterns provides powerful validation of functional significance. The pan-genome scale revealed variation inaccessible through single-reference genome analysis, highlighting the importance of considering population-level genomic diversity in gene family studies [32].

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Integrated Gene Family Analysis

Reagent/Resource	Specifications	Application	Notes for Plant Studies
RNA Extraction Kits	Plant-specific protocols with polysaccharide and polyphenol removal	High-quality RNA for transcriptomics	Include DNase I treatment; quality check with RIN >8.0
scRNA-seq Platforms	10x Genomics, Drop-seq, or plate-based methods	Single-cell transcriptomics	Optimize protoplasting to minimize stress responses
Domain Databases	Pfam, SMART, CDD, InterPro	Domain identification and annotation	PlantTribes2 provides plant-optimized gene families [5]
Multiple Aligners	MAFFT, MUSCLE, Clustal Omega	Sequence alignment for phylogenetic analysis	MAFFT recommended for large datasets [106]
Phylogenetic Software	RAxML, IQ-TREE, MrBayes	Evolutionary reconstruction	Model testing critical for accurate trees
Expression Databases	Phytozome, PlantGDB, Gramene	Comparative transcriptomics	Phytozome includes 134+ plant genomes [35]
GO Annotation Tools	OmicsBox, Blast2GO, agriGO	Functional enrichment analysis	Plant-specific GO slims improve interpretation
Visualization Packages	ggplot2, ComplexHeatmaps, iTOL	Data visualization and presentation	ComplexHeatmaps effective for expression data [32]

Experimental Workflow Visualization

Integrated Validation Workflow for Plant Gene Family Analysis

The integration of transcriptomic evidence with domain architecture analysis provides a robust validation framework for comparative plant gene family research. This multi-dimensional approach transforms simple gene lists into functionally annotated systems with testable hypotheses about biological roles. Implementation requires careful experimental design, appropriate computational resources, and statistical assessment of concordance between structural and expression features.

Successful application of this framework has revealed important biological insights across diverse plant gene families, from transcription factors like bZIPs to signaling components like JAZ proteins. As genomic technologies advance, incorporating pan-genome scale variation and single-cell resolution will further strengthen validation power. The protocols outlined here provide a foundation for rigorous gene family characterization that connects sequence variation with biological function through convergent structural and transcriptional evidence.

Plant immune systems rely heavily on Nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat receptors (NLRs), which function as intracellular sensors responsible for detecting pathogen effectors and initiating robust defense responses [107]. These receptors constitute one of the most diverse and rapidly evolving gene families in plant genomes, reflecting the ongoing evolutionary arms race between plants and their pathogens [108]. The comparative analysis of NLR gene families across related species, and between wild and cultivated varieties, provides crucial insights into the evolutionary mechanisms shaping plant immunity.

This case study examines the NLR gene family in garden asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) and its wild relatives, A. setaceus and A. kiusianus. We demonstrate how the application of comparative genomic and transcriptomic approaches can reveal how artificial selection during domestication has impacted the NLR repertoire, leading to increased disease susceptibility in cultivated asparagus. The methodologies outlined serve as a framework for similar studies in other crop species.

Background and Biological Context

Garden asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) is a high-value horticultural crop whose cultivation is severely hindered by fungal diseases, particularly stem blight caused by Phomopsis asparagi [20] [109]. While the cultivated asparagus is susceptible, its wild relative, A. kiusianus, exhibits strong resistance to this pathogen and can produce fertile hybrids with A. officinalis, making it a valuable genetic resource for breeding programs [20] [109].

The NLR immune receptors are characterized by a conserved architecture typically consisting of a central nucleotide-binding (NB-ARC) domain, a C-terminal leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domain, and a variable N-terminal domain that can be a coiled-coil (CC), Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor (TIR), or RPW8-type CC (CCR) [107]. Based on these N-terminal domains, NLRs are classified into CNLs, TNLs, and RNLs (also known as CCR-NLRs) [110]. RNLs, though small in number, play an essential "helper" role, transducing immune signals from sensor NLRs (both CNLs and TNLs) to activate defense responses [110].

Results: NLR Contraction and Altered Expression in Domesticated Asparagus

Comparative Genomics Reveals NLR Repertoire Contraction

A comprehensive genome-wide identification of NLR genes in three Asparagus species revealed a marked contraction in the NLR gene repertoire from wild species to the cultivated garden asparagus [20].

Table 1: NLR Gene Count in Asparagus Species

Species	Status	Total NLR Genes	Notes
A. setaceus	Wild	63	Largest NLR repertoire
A. kiusianus	Wild	47	Intermediate NLR repertoire
A. officinalis	Cultivated	27	Contracted NLR repertoire; susceptible to P. asparagi

This striking reduction in gene number in A. officinalis suggests that domestication and artificial selection for agricultural traits like yield and quality may have inadvertently selected for a reduction in the genetic capacity for pathogen recognition [20].

Orthologous NLR Analysis and Expression Profiling

Orthologous analysis identified 16 conserved NLR gene pairs between A. setaceus and A. officinalis, representing the core NLR lineage preserved during domestication [20]. However, transcriptomic analysis following P. asparagi infection revealed critical functional differences:

• In the resistant wild species, these conserved NLRs were appropriately induced upon pathogen challenge.
• In susceptible cultivated asparagus, the majority of these retained NLRs showed either unchanged or downregulated expression after fungal infection [20].

This indicates that the increased disease susceptibility in domesticated asparagus is not solely due to gene loss but also involves functional impairment in the regulation of the remaining NLR genes.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

This section provides detailed methodologies for replicating the comparative analysis of the NLR gene family.

Protocol 1: Genome-Wide Identification and Classification of NLR Genes

Objective: To systematically identify and classify all NLR genes from plant genome assemblies.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Tools for NLR Identification

Reagent/Software	Function/Explanation	Source/Reference
Genome Assembly & Annotation Files	Input data for mining NLR genes.	Public databases (e.g., Plant GARDEN, Dryad) [20]
HMMER Suite (v3.4)	For HMMER searches using conserved domain profiles.	http://hmmer.org/ [40]
NB-ARC HMM Profile (PF00931)	Hidden Markov Model for the conserved NLR nucleotide-binding domain.	Pfam Database [20] [111]
BLAST+ (v2.12.0)	For homology-based searches using known NLR sequences.	https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ [40]
InterProScan (v5.53-87.0)	Validates and annotates protein domain architecture.	https://www.ebi.ac.uk/interpro/ [20] [40]
NLRtracker (v1.0.3) / NLR-Annotator (v2.1)	Specialized, automated pipelines for accurate NLR annotation.	[112] [108] [40]
RefPlantNLR	A curated reference set of experimentally validated NLRs for benchmarking.	[108]

Procedure:

• Data Acquisition: Download the genomic sequences (FASTA) and corresponding annotation files (GFF/GTF) for the species of interest.
• Initial Candidate Identification:
  • Perform a HMMER search (hmmsearch) against the proteome of each species using the NB-ARC domain profile (PF00931) with an E-value cutoff of 1e-5 [20] [111].
  • Conduct a BLASTp search using a set of known NLR protein sequences (e.g., from Arabidopsis thaliana, Oryza sativa) as queries against the target proteomes, with an E-value cutoff of 1e-10 [20].
• Domain Architecture Validation: Subject the candidate sequences from both methods to InterProScan or NCBI's CD-Search to confirm the presence of the NB-ARC domain and identify associated N- and C-terminal domains (e.g., TIR, CC, LRR) [20].
• Final Classification and Curation: Classify the validated NLRs into subfamilies (TNL, CNL, RNL) based on their complete domain architecture. Manually inspect and curate the final list to remove fragments and false positives. Using a curated reference set like RefPlantNLR is recommended for benchmarking tool performance [108].

Protocol 2: Phylogenetic and Evolutionary Analysis

Objective: To reconstruct evolutionary relationships and infer duplication/loss events among NLR genes.

Procedure:

• Sequence Alignment: Extract the NB-ARC domain sequences from the identified NLR proteins. Perform a multiple sequence alignment using MAFFT (v7) or Clustal Omega [20] [40].
• Phylogenetic Tree Construction: Construct a maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree using RAxML (v8.2.12) or IQ-TREE with the best-fit model of amino acid substitution (e.g., JTT model). Assess branch support with 1000 bootstrap replicates [20] [111].
• Orthogroup and Cluster Analysis: Use OrthoFinder to identify groups of orthologous genes across species [20]. To identify genomic clusters, define a distance threshold (e.g., genes separated by ≤ 8 intervening genes or 200 kb) and use BEDTools for analysis [20] [113].
• Reconstruction of Gene Family Evolution: Use software like NOTUNG to reconcile the NLR gene tree with the species tree, identifying events of gene duplication and loss throughout the evolutionary history [111].

Protocol 3: Expression Analysis of NLR Genes

Objective: To profile the expression of NLR genes in response to pathogen infection.

Procedure:

• Plant Material and Inoculation: Grow plants under controlled conditions. For pathogen challenge, inoculate plants with a spore suspension of P. asparagi (or relevant pathogen), using mock inoculation (e.g., sterile distilled water) as a control [20] [109]. Sample tissue at critical time points (e.g., 24 hours post-inoculation) [109].
• RNA Sequencing: Extract total RNA from treated and control samples. Construct RNA-seq libraries and perform high-throughput sequencing on a platform such as Illumina HiSeq 2500 [109].
• Differential Expression Analysis: Process the raw reads (quality control, adapter trimming) and map them to the reference genome. Assemble transcripts and quantify gene expression levels. Identify Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs) using tools like DESeq2 or edgeR, with a defined significance threshold (e.g., adjusted p-value < 0.05) [109].
• Validation: Validate the expression patterns of key NLR genes using quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) [109].

Diagram 1: NLR comparative analysis workflow. The pipeline integrates genomic identification, evolutionary analysis, and functional expression profiling.

Discussion and Application

The case of asparagus demonstrates a clear link between the contraction of the NLR gene family and increased disease susceptibility in a domesticated crop. The loss of genetic diversity and the functional impairment of retained NLRs likely resulted from a focus on selective breeding for non-defense-related traits [20]. This phenomenon underscores the importance of monitoring the integrity of the NLR repertoire in crop breeding programs.

The protocols outlined here provide a robust framework for conducting similar comparative studies in other plant species. Key applications include:

• Wild Germplasm Screening: Identifying wild relatives with expanded or distinct NLR repertoires to serve as sources of novel resistance genes for introgression into elite cultivars [20] [109].
• Diagnostic Breeding: Using knowledge of specific, conserved NLR orthologs that retain functionality to guide marker-assisted selection [20] [113].
• Functional Validation: The candidate NLR genes identified through these comparative genomic approaches can be targeted for functional validation using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing or transgenic complementation to confirm their role in disease resistance [113].

Diagram 2: Simplified NLR immune signaling. Sensor NLRs detect pathogen effectors, leading to helper RNL activation often via EDS1 complexes, triggering defense responses.

The study of gene families provides critical insights into evolutionary adaptation, particularly how duplications and functional diversification of genes enable organisms to exploit new ecological niches. In plant genomics, comparative analysis of gene families is a established methodology for linking genomic changes to phenotypic traits [5]. This application note demonstrates how these core principles and tools from plant research can be successfully applied to an animal system—the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens). This species represents an exceptional case of rapid ecological adaptation, facilitated by expansions in digestive and olfactory gene families [114]. We detail the experimental and bioinformatic protocols used to identify and characterize these gene family expansions, providing a framework for similar investigations across diverse organisms.

Key Findings: Gene Family Expansions inHermetia illucens

Comparative genomic analysis of the black soldier fly within the Stratiomyidae family and against the related Asilidae family reveals significant gene family expansions correlated with its unique decomposing ecology.

Table 1: Summary of Gene Family Expansions in Black Soldier Fly

Gene Family Category	Specific Functions	Evolutionary Implication	Enrichment Context
Digestive & Metabolic	Proteolysis, general metabolism [114]	Enhanced efficiency in breaking down diverse organic wastes [114]	Enriched across Stratiomyidae, pronounced in H. illucens [114]
Immunity	Immune response pathways [114]	Ability to thrive in microbially rich decomposing environments [114]	Specific to the H. illucens lineage [114]
Olfactory	Olfaction and chemosensation [114]	Improved detection and selection of oviposition sites and food sources [114]	Specific to the H. illucens lineage [114]

These expansions are hypothesized to be a primary molecular basis for the black soldier fly's efficiency in waste bioconversion and its successful global expansion as a human commensal [114]. Gene duplication creates genetic raw material for functional diversification, allowing duplicated genes to acquire new functions (neofunctionalization) or partition ancestral functions (subfunctionalization) [115].

Experimental Design and Workflow

The study employed a comparative genomics approach, leveraging high-quality genome assemblies to trace the evolution of gene families across a phylogenetic framework.

Genome Selection and Quality Assessment

The analysis was built on chromosome-level reference genomes from 14 species: six Stratiomyidae species (including H. illucens) and eight Asilidae species [114]. BUSCO (Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs) was used to assess and confirm the completeness and quality of all genome assemblies against a dipteran benchmark [114]. High-quality genomes are essential for accurate gene annotation and downstream comparative analysis.

Orthology Inference and Gene Family Definition

OrthoFinder was used to cluster the protein-coding genes from all 14 species into orthogroups (gene families) [114]. This tool infers groups of genes descended from a single gene in the last common ancestor of all species considered. The analysis assigned 201,275 genes (95.3% of total) to 15,964 orthogroups [114].

Phylogenetic Tree Construction

A species tree was constructed from the orthology analysis using the STAG method within OrthoFinder, based on 3,328 orthogroups containing single-copy genes present in all species [114]. This phylogeny provides the evolutionary framework for analyzing gene family expansions and contractions.

Identification of Expansions and Functional Enrichment

The CAFE (Comparative Analysis of Gene Family Evolution) software was used to model gene family gains and losses across the phylogeny and to identify families that have undergone statistically significant expansion or contraction in specific lineages [116]. Subsequently, GO (Gene Ontology) and KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) enrichment analyses were performed on the expanded families in H. illucens and Stratiomyidae to identify over-represented biological functions, such as "proteolysis" or "immune response" [114] [117].

Diagram 1: Overall workflow for comparative gene family analysis, from data preparation to biological interpretation.

Detailed Protocols

Protocol: Orthogroup Inference with OrthoFinder

Objective: To cluster genes from multiple genomes into orthogroups (gene families) [114].

• Input Preparation: For each genome, obtain the protein sequence file in FASTA format. Use a script (e.g., primary_transcript.py provided with OrthoFinder) to filter the annotation to include only the longest protein isoform per gene.
• Software Execution: Run OrthoFinder with the multiple sequence alignment option for accurate phylogeny estimation.

• Output Analysis: Key outputs include:
  • Orthogroups.tsv: The list of orthogroups and their constituent genes.
  • Orthogroups_SingleCopyOrthologues.txt: List of single-copy orthologues used for species tree inference.
  • Species_Tree/SpeciesTree_rooted.txt: The inferred rooted species tree.

Protocol: Gene Family Evolution Analysis with CAFE

Objective: To identify gene families that have expanded or contracted significantly across a given phylogeny [116].

• Input Preparation:
  • Gene Count Table: A table where rows are orthogroups and columns are species, containing the number of genes in each orthogroup for each species. This can be derived from the OrthoFinder output.
  • Ultrametric Species Tree: The rooted, dated species tree from OrthoFinder or another source, with branch lengths reflecting evolutionary time.
• Software Execution: Run CAFE to fit a probabilistic model of gene family evolution. The -p option calculates significance values for expansions/contractions.

• Output Analysis: The results.txt file contains the significant changes in gene family size across the tree. The Base_family_results.txt file details changes for each family.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Tools and Resources for Gene Family Analysis

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in this Study
OrthoFinder [114]	Software	Infers orthogroups and gene families from genomic data	Core analysis to cluster genes from 14 species into orthogroups [114]
CAFE [116]	Software	Models gene family expansion/contraction across a phylogeny	Statistical identification of significantly expanded families in H. illucens [116]
BUSCO [114]	Software	Assesses completeness of genome assemblies	Quality control of the 14 input genomes [114]
PlantTribes2 [5] [42]	Analysis Framework	Gene family classification & comparative genomics	A scalable framework for such analyses; applicable beyond plants to any organism [5]
Earl Grey [114]	Software Pipeline	Identifies and annotates repetitive elements	Characterized transposable elements in Stratiomyidae genomes [114]
GO & KEGG Databases [117]	Functional Database	Provide functional annotation of genes	Determining biological roles of expanded gene families (e.g., digestion, immunity) [114] [117]

Integration with Plant Gene Family Research Methods

The methodologies applied in this black soldier fly case study are directly transferable from, and inform, comparative gene family research in plants. The general workflow is conserved across kingdoms.

Diagram 2: A unified workflow for gene family analysis, applicable to both plant and non-plant systems.

• Unified Analytical Frameworks: Tools like OrthoFinder and CAFE are kingdom-agnostic and represent standard practice in both plant and animal genomics [114] [116]. The PlantTribes2 framework, while designed for plants, is explicitly noted as being adaptable for use with "genomic and transcriptomic data from any kind of organism" [5] [42]. This demonstrates the core principle of reusing robust bioinformatic pipelines across diverse taxa.
• Connecting Genomic Change to Trait Evolution: This study mirrors common objectives in plant research, such as linking gene family expansions to the evolution of specific traits like disease resistance or specialized metabolism. Here, expansions in digestive and olfactory gene families are correlated with the adaptive trait of efficient waste decomposition, a direct parallel to studies linking pathogenicity gene families to host range in plant-pathogenic Colletotrichum fungi [118].

This application note demonstrates that the genomic mechanisms underlying ecological adaptation—specifically, gene family expansion—can be investigated using a standardized comparative genomics toolkit. The case of the black soldier fly provides a compelling non-plant example of how these methods can decipher the molecular basis of a economically and ecologically relevant trait. The protocols and workflows detailed herein, from genome-quality assessment to functional enrichment analysis, offer a replicable blueprint for studying gene family evolution in a wide array of organisms, thereby enriching the broader field of comparative genomics.

Application Notes

The Critical Role of Cross-Species Comparisons in Modern Plant Genomics

Cross-species comparative genomics has become an indispensable methodology for inferring evolutionary trajectories and functional divergence of gene families in plants. By analyzing genomic sequences from species at varying evolutionary distances, researchers can identify conserved coding and functional non-coding sequences, determine sequences unique to specific lineages, and reconstruct the evolutionary history of key traits [119]. The dramatic increase in sequenced plant genomes—with over 1,800 species sequenced by the end of 2024—has created unprecedented opportunities for comparative analyses [120]. These approaches are particularly powerful for tracing the molecular adaptations that have enabled plants to colonize terrestrial environments and evolve complex signaling networks.

For example, comparative analyses have revealed that the origin of land plants (embryophytes) was characterized by a burst of gene innovation in their common ancestor, followed by divergent evolutionary trajectories in bryophytes (non-vascular plants) and tracheophytes (vascular plants) [121]. Bryophytes subsequently experienced a dramatic episode of reductive genome evolution, losing genes associated with vasculature and stomatal complexity, while tracheophytes expanded these gene families [121]. Similarly, studies of the nitrate signaling regulatory network (NSRN) have shown that a relatively complete signaling network centered on NPF6.3 was established at the ancestral node of seed plants, with ongoing recruitment of additional components increasing network complexity throughout plant evolution [122].

Key Biological Insights from Comparative Approaches

Comparative genomics has yielded fundamental insights into plant evolutionary history:

• Land Plant Origins: Integration of new fossil calibrations and phylogenomic methods has resolved tracheophytes and bryophytes as monophyletic sister groups that diverged during the Cambrian (515–494 million years ago), revealing that both lineages are highly derived from a more complex ancestral land plant [121].

• Gene Family Evolution: Analysis of the UDP-glycosyltransferases (UGTs) gene family in tomato through pangenome-wide approaches identified 12,073 genes and revealed that whole-genome triplication and tandem duplication events played significant roles in family expansion, with purifying selection dominating the evolutionary history in the genus Solanum [123].

• Signaling Network Evolution: Systematic identification of homologous genes encoding 20 key components of the nitrate signaling regulatory network demonstrated that most functional clades appeared at the ancestral node of seed plants, with conserved protein interactions established in gymnosperms and maintained in angiosperms [122].

Table 1: Evolutionary Insights from Cross-Species Comparisons in Plants

Biological System	Key Finding	Methodology	Citation
Land plant origins	Bryophytes and tracheophytes diverged 515-494 million years ago	Phylogenomic analysis with fossil calibrations	[121]
UGT gene family	Expansion via whole-genome triplication and tandem duplication	Pangenome-wide analysis across 61 tomatoes	[123]
Nitrate signaling network	Core network established in seed plant ancestor	Phylogenetic analysis of 20 components across 24 species	[122]
Plant genome diversity	>1,800 plant species sequenced by 2024	Genomic resource cataloging (PubPlant)	[120]

Protocols

Comparative Analysis of Gene Family Evolution

Objective

To reconstruct evolutionary histories and functional divergence of gene families across multiple plant species using genomic and transcriptomic data.

Materials and Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Resources for Comparative Gene Family Analysis

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Platforms	Function	Access
Genomic Data Portals	Ensembl Plants, PubPlant, PLAZA	Access to annotated genomes and comparative genomics data	https://plants.ensembl.org; https://www.plabipd.de/pubplant_main.html	[120] [36]
Gene Family Analysis Frameworks	PlantTribes2, OMA standalone	Orthology inference and gene family classification	https://github.com/PlantTribes/PlantTribes2	[54]
Sequence Analysis Tools	BLASTP, HMMER, MAFFT, RAxML	Identification of homologous sequences and phylogenetic reconstruction	https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/sss/ncbiblast/; https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/hmmer/	[122]
Comparative Genomics Platforms	PLAZA, Ensembl Compara	Gene trees, whole genome alignments, synteny analyses	https://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/plaza/	[6] [36]

Workflow

Step 1: Data Collection and Curation

• Obtain genomic protein and CDS sequences for target species from public databases (Ensembl Plants, NCBI, Phytozome) [122] [36]
• For species lacking genome sequences, compile transcriptome assemblies from sources such as the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) or National Genomics Data Center (NGDC) [122]
• Cross-reference scientific names against Plants of the World Online (POWO) to ensure taxonomic accuracy [120]

Step 2: Identification of Gene Family Members

• Perform BLASTP analysis using well-annotated functional genes as queries (E-value < 10⁻⁵) [122]
• Conduct profile hidden Markov model (HMM) searches using domains from the Pfam database as seeds (--domE 0.001) [122]
• Manually inspect and screen putative orthologs using InterProScan to confirm domain architecture [122]

Step 3: Phylogenetic Reconstruction

• Align amino acid sequences using MAFFT [122]
• Trim poorly aligned regions with trimAL using parameter "-gt 0.3" [122]
• Construct maximum likelihood phylogenies using RAxML under the "GTRGAMMA" model with 1000 bootstrap replicates [122]
• Visualize consensus trees using iTOL or similar visualization platforms [122]

Step 4: Evolutionary History Analysis

• Identify syntenic blocks using MCScanX with default parameters [122]
• Classify gene duplication types (whole-genome duplication, tandem, segmental, transposed) using the duplicategeneclassifier in MCScanX [122]
• Map gene family expansion patterns across the phylogeny to identify lineage-specific events [123]

Step 5: Functional Divergence Assessment

• Analyze gene expression patterns across tissues and species using RNA-seq data (quantified as TPM values) [122]
• Predict protein-protein interactions using the STRING database or similar resources [122]
• Identify conserved motifs and domains indicative of functional conservation or divergence [54]

Figure 1: Gene family analysis workflow for evolutionary inference

Pangenome-Wide Analysis of Gene Family Divergence

Objective

To characterize the full complement of gene families within a clade by integrating data from multiple reference genomes and assessing functional divergence.

Workflow

Step 1: Pangenome Construction

• Select multiple genomes representing the diversity within the target clade (e.g., 61 tomato genomes in the UGT study) [123]
• Annotate genes using standardized pipelines to ensure consistency across datasets
• Classify genes into core (present in all accessions), softcore (present in most), dispensable (present in some), and private (unique to specific accessions) categories [123]

Step 2: Evolutionary Dynamics Analysis

• Calculate orthologous groups using graph-based (OrthoMCL) or tree-based (TreeFam) methods [6]
• Perform selection pressure analysis using PAML or similar tools to identify sites under positive or purifying selection [123]
• Map gene gain and loss events across the phylogeny using Dollo or Wagner parsimony [121]

Step 3: Functional Characterization

• Analyze tissue-specific expression patterns using RNA-seq data to identify expression divergence [123]
• Predict subcellular localization using tools such as TargetP, SignalP, and Wolf PSORT [123]
• Annotate functional domains and Gene Ontology terms to infer biochemical functions [6]

Cross-Species Signaling Network Reconstruction

Objective

To trace the evolutionary assembly of complex signaling networks by comparing component genes across diverse species.

Workflow

Step 1: Network Component Identification

• Compile a comprehensive list of known components from model systems (e.g., 20 key components of the NPF6.3-centered nitrate signaling network) [122]
• Identify homologous sequences across target species using iterative BLAST and HMM searches
• Confirm domain architecture and key functional residues through sequence alignment and structural comparison

Step 2: Evolutionary Trajectory Mapping

• Determine the evolutionary origin of each component by surveying diverse lineages from algae to angiosperms
• Identify "putatively functional clades" - gene clusters that exhibit significant phylogenetic grouping with experimentally validated genes from model systems [122]
• Analyze duplication events (whole-genome, tandem, segmental) that contributed to network complexity

Step 3: Network Assembly Analysis

• Predict protein-protein interactions among components using the STRING database or similar resources [122]
• Assess root-preferential expression patterns in early-diverging species to infer tissue-specific network function [122]
• Determine when functional interactions were established by mapping conserved interactions to phylogenetic nodes

Figure 2: Signaling network reconstruction workflow

Advanced Applications and Integration

Single-Cell Cross-Species Comparisons

Emerging methodologies enable comparative analyses at single-cell resolution, providing unprecedented resolution for understanding evolutionary trajectories. The Icebear framework decomposes single-cell measurements into factors representing cell identity, species, and batch effects, enabling accurate prediction of single-cell gene expression profiles across species [124]. This approach is particularly valuable for:

• Comparing gene expression profiles of conserved genes located on different chromosomes across species (e.g., X-chromosome genes in mammals versus autosomal locations in chicken) [124]
• Transferring knowledge from model organisms to humans when certain experimental measurements are unavailable [124]
• Understanding transcriptional differences in specific cell types rather than bulk tissues [124]

Integration with Fossil Calibrations and Horizontal Gene Transfer

Molecular dating approaches enhanced by horizontal gene transfer events provide powerful calibration points for evolutionary analyses. For example, the transfer of the chimaeric photoreceptor NEOCHROME from hornworts into ferns provides a relative constraint that ties the history of hornworts to that of ferns, enabling more precise dating of divergence events [121]. This integrated approach:

• Combines fossil evidence with genomic relative dating
• Ameliorates limitations in groups with sparse fossil records (e.g., hornworts)
• Provides greater precision and accuracy in divergence time estimation

Table 3: Data Types for Cross-Species Evolutionary Analyses

Data Type	Application	Methodological Considerations
Whole genome sequences	Gene family identification, synteny analysis, whole-genome alignment	Quality of assembly and annotation critical for comparative analyses	[119] [120]
Transcriptome data	Expression analysis, gene model improvement	Normalization across species and tissues essential for valid comparisons	[122]
Single-cell RNA-seq	Cell-type specific expression conservation	Requires specialized methods for cross-species cell matching	[124]
Epigenomic data	Regulatory element conservation	Emerging resource for plants, limited to model species currently	[125]
Phenotypic data	Linking genotype to phenotype	Standardized ontologies facilitate cross-species comparisons	[6]

The protocols outlined herein provide a comprehensive framework for inferring evolutionary trajectories and functional divergence through cross-species comparisons. As genomic resources continue to expand—with initiatives like PubPlant tracking over 1,800 sequenced plant species by 2024—these methods will become increasingly powerful for unraveling the molecular basis of plant diversity and adaptation [120]. The integration of pangenome perspectives, single-cell technologies, and sophisticated phylogenetic methods promises to further refine our understanding of how gene families and regulatory networks have evolved to generate the remarkable diversity of the plant kingdom.

This application note provides a framework for linking genotype to phenotype, with a specific focus on interpreting results within the context of plant domestication and trait evolution. We detail methodologies for generating high-quality genomic resources, identifying different classes of genetic variation, and conducting association studies that connect this variation to phenotypic traits. The protocols emphasize the integration of evolutionary concepts—such as selection pressure and phylogenetic history—to accurately interpret data and draw meaningful biological conclusions about domestication processes. A key emphasis is placed on moving beyond simple single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis to include structural variants (SVs) and gene content variation, which have been shown to disproportionately influence phenotypic outcomes [126]. Furthermore, we demonstrate how cross-species prediction models can leverage evolutionary relationships to understand trait heritability. This resource is designed for researchers and scientists investigating the genetic basis of complex traits in plants, particularly those related to domestication.

A comprehensive understanding of the genetic architecture underlying phenotypic diversity requires the integration of the full spectrum of genetic variation, from single-nucleotide polymorphisms to large structural variants [126]. In the specific context of domestication, this involves identifying genetic changes that have occurred as a result of artificial selection for desirable traits, which can be traced through evolutionary analysis.

Domestication is an evolutionary process where plants and animals are artificially selected, leading to significant phenotypic, behavioral, and physiological alterations [127]. This process often involves selection pressures for traits that are beneficial to humans, such as increased fruit size, loss of seed shattering, or changes in secondary metabolism. For instance, studies in grapevine have identified selective sweeps associated with berry palatability, hermaphroditism, and skin color [128]. Resolving these complex genotype-phenotype relationships demands high-quality genomic resources and analytical methods that can account for evolutionary history.

Experimental Protocols

Objective: To create high-contiguity, chromosome-scale genome assemblies for a population of individuals, enabling the comprehensive discovery of all variant types.

Background: Traditional short-read sequencing often fails to resolve complex genomic regions, leading to incomplete catalogs of genetic diversity, particularly for structural variants. Long-read sequencing technologies are essential for building a complete atlas of genetic variation [126].

Materials:

• Biological Material: A diverse panel of natural isolates or cultivars (e.g., 1,000+ individuals).
• Equipment: Oxford Nanopore Technology (ONT) or PacBio long-read sequencer, high-performance computing cluster.
• Software: Hybrid assembly pipeline (e.g., hybrid assembler incorporating long and short reads), BUSCO, Merqury.

Procedure:

• DNA Extraction & Sequencing: Isolate high-molecular-weight DNA from each sample. Sequence each isolate using long-read technology (e.g., ONT) to an average depth of 95x coverage.
• Hybrid Assembly: Assemble the long reads into contigs using a dedicated assembler. Use available short-read data from the same isolates to polish and correct base-level errors in the assemblies, maximizing contiguity and completeness.
• Haplotype Resolution: For heterozygous individuals, perform haplotype-resolved assembly to phase variants and assess heterozygosity across the genome.
• Quality Assessment: Evaluate assembly quality using the following metrics:
  • Contiguity: Measure the N50 statistic and the number of contigs per chromosome. Aim for chromosome-scale assemblies (median of 1.06 contigs per chromosome) [126].
  • Completeness: Assess with BUSCO, aiming for scores >99% [126].
  • Accuracy: Estimate with Merqury (average QV of >40 is excellent) [126].

Data Interpretation:

• High-quality, "near telomere-to-telomere" assemblies provide the foundation for all downstream variant discovery and association analyses.
• Assembly sizes can vary (e.g., 11.17 to 12.95 Mb in yeast), and this variation itself can be a source of phenotypic diversity [126].

Protocol 2: Constructing a Species-Wide Structural Variant Atlas

Objective: To identify and characterize all major structural variants (SVs) across a population using high-quality genome assemblies.

Background: SVs (e.g., presence-absence variations, copy-number variations, inversions) are underexplored but have substantial phenotypic effects. They are often enriched in subtelomeric regions and can be linked to transposable elements [126].

Materials:

• Input Data: High-quality genome assemblies from Protocol 1.
• Software: Pairwise whole-genome aligner (e.g., MUMmer), SV caller, BLAST.

Procedure:

• Variant Calling: Perform pairwise alignment of all assemblies against a single reference genome. Call SVs (typically >50 bp) based on disruptions in alignment.
• Classification: Categorize SVs into:
  • Presence-Absence Variations (PAVs): Sequences present in the reference but absent in some isolates, or vice-versa.
  • Copy-Number Variations (CNVs): Segmental duplications.
  • Inversions: Sequences inverted relative to the reference.
  • Translocations: Movements of sequences between non-homologous chromosomes.
• Annotation: Annotate SVs for overlap with genes and transposable elements (e.g., Ty elements in yeast).
• Validation: Systematically validate a subset of SV calls (e.g., 500 SVs) by mapping independent short-read data to the assemblies. A >95% validation rate confirms high accuracy [126].

Data Interpretation:

• Calculate the minor allele frequency (MAF) for each SV. Most SVs are rare (MAF < 1%), suggesting they may be under purifying selection [126].
• Analyze the genomic distribution of SVs. They are frequently enriched in subtelomeric regions, which are known to be structurally variable and gene-rich [126].
• Estimate species-wide SV diversity and project the total number of SVs to understand the completeness of your catalog.

Protocol 3: Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) Integrating All Variant Types

Objective: To identify genetic variants significantly associated with organismal and molecular traits of interest.

Background: Integrating the full spectrum of genetic variation—SNPs, indels, and SVs—into GWAS significantly improves the heritability explained for complex traits compared to using SNPs alone [126].

Materials:

• Input Data: Genotype data (SNPs, indels, SVs from Protocol 2) and phenotype data for the same population.
• Software: GWAS software (e.g., GEMMA, PLINK), R or Python for statistical analysis.

Procedure:

• Phenotyping: Collect high-quality phenotypic data for a range of traits (e.g., 8,000+ traits, including morphological, physiological, and molecular phenotypes such as transcript and metabolite levels).
• Variant Filtering: Filter genetic variants based on quality scores and minor allele frequency (e.g., MAF > 1%).
• Association Testing: For each trait, perform association testing between each genetic marker and the phenotypic values, using a mixed model to account for population structure.
• Heritability Analysis: Partition the heritability explained by different variant types (SNPs, indels, SVs) to assess their relative contributions.

Data Interpretation:

• SVs are frequently more strongly associated with traits and exhibit greater pleiotropy (one variant affecting multiple traits) than other variant types [126].
• The genetic architecture of molecular traits (e.g., gene expression) often differs markedly from that of organismal traits (e.g., growth rate) [126].
• Significant associations should be interpreted in the context of gene function and evolutionary history.

Protocol 4: Phylogenomic Analysis for Ortholog Prediction in Plant Gene Families

Objective: To accurately identify orthologous genes across species to enable functional inference and evolutionary analysis of domestication-related traits.

Background: Identifying orthologs—genes separated by a speciation event—is crucial for transferring functional annotations from model species to crops. Phylogenomics, which uses phylogenetic trees to infer orthology, is more accurate than pairwise similarity methods [25].

Materials:

• Input Data: Annotated protein sequences from the species of interest.
• Software: Gene family clustering tool (e.g., TribeMCL), multiple sequence alignment tool (e.g., MAFFT), phylogenetic tree inference software (e.g., RAxML), orthology prediction pipeline (e.g., PlantTribes2 [42]).

Procedure:

• Gene Family Clustering: Cluster the complete proteomes of your target species into gene families based on sequence similarity. The PlantTribes2 framework can be used for this objective classification [42].
• Multiple Sequence Alignment: For each gene family, perform a multiple sequence alignment.
• Gene Tree Construction: Reconstruct a phylogenetic tree for each gene family using maximum likelihood or neighbor-joining methods.
• Ortholog Inference: Compare the gene tree topology to the known species tree to identify orthologs and paralogs using tree reconciliation methods [25] [129].

Data Interpretation:

• Orthologs typically retain the same function in different species and are the primary targets for cross-species function prediction.
• The presence of co-orthologs (multiple genes in one species orthologous to a single gene in another) indicates species-specific gene duplication, which can be a source of novel traits during domestication.

Table 1: Key Quantitative Findings from a Large-Scale Genomic Study of 1,086 Isolates [126]

Metric	Value	Biological Significance
Total unique SVs identified	6,587	Demonstrates the extensive role of SVs in genomic diversity
SV distribution (PAVs/CNVs/Inversions/Translocations)	4,755 / 1,207 / 231 / 394	PAVs and CNVs are the most common type of structural variation
Average SVs per isolate pair	289	Highlights the high level of structural heterozygosity
Percentage of rare SVs (MAF < 1%)	69%	Suggests many SVs are under negative selection
Heritability improvement from adding SVs/indels	+14.3% (average)	Critical justification for including all variant types in GWAS
Percentage of chromosomes in single contigs	97.2%	Indicates the high contiguity of the genome assemblies
Assembly completeness (BUSCO)	99.1% (average)	Confirms high gene-space completeness for functional genomics

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Genotype-to-Phenotype Studies

Research Reagent / Tool	Function in Analysis
Long-read sequencer (ONT/PacBio)	Generates long DNA reads essential for assembling complex genomic regions and detecting SVs [126].
PlantTribes2	A scalable gene family analysis framework that sorts protein sequences into orthologous clusters for evolutionary studies [42].
MMseqs2	A fast and sensitive tool for multiple sequence alignment (MSA) retrieval, used to identify homologous sequences and evolutionary patterns [130].
Graph Pangenome	A data structure that captures the full genomic diversity of a species, including non-reference sequences, improving variant discovery [126].
DupTree	Software for Gene Tree Parsimony (GTP) analysis, used to infer species trees from large collections of gene trees while accounting for duplication and loss [129].
Conditional Diffusion Model (G2PDiffusion)	A cross-species genotype-to-phenotype prediction model that uses DNA sequence and environmental context to generate morphological image proxies [130].

Workflow and Pathway Visualizations

Genotype to Phenotype Analysis Workflow

Genotype to Phenotype Analysis Workflow

Domestication Pathway Analysis

Domestication Pathway Analysis

Conclusion

The comparative analysis of plant gene families is a powerful approach that seamlessly connects genomic sequence to biological function and evolutionary history. By mastering the foundational principles, methodological workflows, and validation techniques outlined in this article, researchers can systematically uncover the genetic basis of critical agronomic traits, from disease resistance to environmental adaptation. The future of this field lies in the integration of multi-omics data, the development of more accessible and automated bioinformatics platforms like PlantTribes2, and the application of these methods to a wider phylogenetic diversity of crops. This will undoubtedly accelerate functional gene discovery and provide a robust scientific foundation for the next generation of plant breeding and biotechnology, with profound implications for enhancing food security and sustainable agriculture.

References

• 1. Gene-Family Extension Measures and Correlations - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5041006/]
• 2. Frontiers | Evolutionary of Adaptations ... Plant Genes [https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/68095/evolutionary-adaptations-of-plant-genes-a-comprehensive-study-of-phylogenomics-epigenetic-changes-and-protein-dynamics]
• 3. The emergence and evolution of intron-poor and intronless genes in... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33217085/]
• 4. The genetic architecture of repeated... | Nature Ecology & Evolution [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02514-5?error=cookies_not_supported&code=fdb3a2a3-4747-4717-bb78-3580081f19cf]
• 5. PlantTribes2: Tools for comparative in gene ... family analysis plant [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9928214/]
• 6. Dissecting Plant Genomes with the PLAZA Comparative Genomics Platform - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3271752/]
• 7. Plant Program | Joint Genome Institute [https://jgi.doe.gov/science-programs/plant-program]
• 8. Genome-wide comparison reveals large structural in... variants [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-11523-y]
• 9. Population-level gene copy reveal distinct genetic... number variations [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-11677-9]
• 10. Frontiers | Editorial: Exploring structural in variants ... plant [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1700222/full]
• 11. Gene Family Expansions Provide Molecular Flexibility Required for Context‐Dependent Species Interactions - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12453137/]
• 12. Oxford Nanopore and Bionano Genomics technologies evaluation for... [https://nanoporetech.com/resource-centre/oxford-nanopore-and-bionano-genomics-technologies-evaluation-plant-structural]
• 13. Frontiers | Pangenome analysis indicates evolutionary origins and genetic diversity: emphasis on the role of nodulation in symbiotic Bradyrhizobium [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1539151/full]
• 14. A Comprehensive Evolutionary Analysis of the Dihydroflavonol 4-Reductase (DFR) Gene Family in Plants: Insights from 237 Species [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/16/4/396]
• 15. - Wikipedia Neofunctionalization [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofunctionalization]
• 16. retention, fractionation and subgenome differences in polyploid... Gene [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29725103/]
• 17. Models for gene duplication when dosage balance works as... [https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-016-0616-1]
• 18. -wide identification and Genome of... comparative evolution [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-11513-0]
• 19. versus Subfunctionalization ... | Nature Genetics neofunctionalization [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0162-4?error=cookies_not_supported&code=5d5b2ee3-dc66-4749-a822-9f174b26c04d]
• 20. Frontiers | Comparative analysis of the NLR gene in the... family [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1681919/full]
• 21. and Comparative analysis of genomics CNGCs... evolutionary plant [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9400807/]
• 22. Frontiers | Foundation models in plant molecular biology: advances, challenges, and future directions [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1611992/full]
• 23. Homology: Orthologs and Paralogs [https://www.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/workshops/2023-08_BLAST_evol/ortho_para.html]
• 24. Inferring Orthology and Paralogy | SpringerLink [https://link.springer.com/protocol/10.1007/978-1-4939-9074-0_5]
• 25. Phylogenomics of plant genomes: a methodology for genome-wide searches for orthologs in plants - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2377279/]
• 26. OrthoFinder: solving fundamental biases in whole genome... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0721-2]
• 27. Evaluating Orthology Inference Algorithms in Brassicaceae [https://scisimple.com/en/articles/2025-09-29-evaluating-orthology-inference-algorithms-in-brassicaceae--a9800nj]
• 28. Inferring Orthology and Paralogy - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31278664/]
• 29. Phylogenomics of plant genomes: a methodology for genome-wide searches for orthologs in plants - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18426584/]
• 30. Synteny Identifies Reliable Orthologs for Phylogenomics and Comparative Genomics of the Brassicaceae - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10016055/]
• 31. Frontiers | Landscapes of Isolation: Genomic ... Signatures [https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/72680/landscapes-of-isolation-genomic-signatures-evolutionary-dynamics-and-speciation-across-geographical-barriers]
• 32. and functional characterization of Jasmonate... Evolutionary dynamics [https://maxapress.com/article/doi/10.48130/bpr-0025-0027]
• 33. of Environmental Adaptation in Castanopsis... Genomic Signatures [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11991105/]
• 34. 2025 and Beyond: The Future of Genomic Data Analysis and Innovations in Genomics Services [https://blog.crownbio.com/2025-and-beyond-the-future-of-genomic-data-analysis-and-innovations-in-genomics-services]
• 35. Unlocking Plant Genomics Secrets [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/comparative-genomics-plant-biology-ultimate-guide]
• 36. Ensembl Plants is a genome -centric portal for plant species of... [https://plants.ensembl.org/info/genome/compara/index.html]
• 37. Communicating clearly about data sharing in genomics | Human Genomics | Full Text [https://humgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40246-025-00784-z]
• 38. Future-proofing genomic data and consent management: a comprehensive review of technology innovations - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11152178/]
• 39. and Genome : Background, Assembly and... Annotation Workflow [https://www.cd-genomics.com/resource-genome-assembly-annotation-background-workflow-applications.html]
• 40. Phylogenomics of Plant NLR Immune Receptors to Identify... [https://bio-protocol.org/en/bpdetail?id=5023&type=0]
• 41. Frontiers | Long-read microbial genome , gene prediction... assembly [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioinformatics/articles/10.3389/fbinf.2025.1632189/full]
• 42. Frontiers | PlantTribes2: Tools for comparative ... gene family analysis [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.1011199/full]
• 43. Ten steps to get started in Genome and Assembly - PMC Annotation [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5850084/]
• 44. Computational Tools for Genomic Studies in Plants - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5282602/]
• 45. Approaches to increase the validity of gene identification using... family [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10709-023-00196-8]
• 46. Bioinformatics Approach in Plant Genomic Research - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4955030/]
• 47. geneHummus: an R package to define gene families and their expression in legumes and beyond - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6639926/]
• 48. Transcription factors in microalgae: genome -wide prediction and... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-016-2610-9]
• 49. Pfam: a comprehensive database of protein domain families based on seed alignments - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9223186/]
• 50. Pfam - Database Commons [https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/databasecommons/database/id/186]
• 51. Frontiers | Building a foundation for gene family analysis in Rosaceae genomes with a novel workflow: A case study in Pyrus architecture genes [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.975942/full]
• 52. : phylogenetic orthology inference for OrthoFinder ... comparative [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1832-y]
• 53. Different orthology inference algorithms generate similar predicted orthogroups among Brassicaceae species - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39906489/]
• 54. PlantTribes2: Tools for comparative gene family analysis in plant genomics - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36798801/]
• 55. GitHub - davidemms/ OrthoFinder : Phylogenetic orthology inference for... [https://github.com/davidemms/OrthoFinder]
• 56. Assessing the efficiency of multiple sequence alignment programs - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4015676/]
• 57. ver.7 - a multiple sequence MAFFT program alignment [https://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/software/algorithms/]
• 58. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC390337/]
• 59. MUSCLE (alignment software) - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSCLE_(alignment_software)]
• 60. Phylogenetic Inference -- MEGA manual [https://www.megasoftware.net/mega1_manual/Phylogeny.html]
• 61. Ensembl Plants is a genome -centric portal for plant species of... [https://plants.ensembl.org/info/genome/compara/homology_method.html]
• 62. tracks regions of interest and gene copy number... GENESPACE [https://elifesciences.org/articles/78526]
• 63. PlantCARE, a database of plant cis-acting regulatory elements and a portal to tools for in silico analysis of promoter sequences - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11752327/]
• 64. GitHub - jtlovell/ GENESPACE [https://github.com/jtlovell/GENESPACE]
• 65. Guide of Analysis of Promoter Regulatory Elements Based on Plant CARE Prediction Method - Creative BioMart [https://www.creativebiomart.net/resource/principle-protocol-guide-of-analysis-of-promoter-regulatory-elements-based-on-plant-care-prediction-method-450.htm]
• 66. PlantPAN: Plant promoter analysis navigator, for identifying combinatorial cis-regulatory elements with distance constraint in plant gene groups | BMC Genomics | Full Text [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-9-561]
• 67. : A Key to Gene Biology Expression Analysis Plant [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/gene-expression-analysis-key-to-plant-biology]
• 68. -generated NCBI - RNA count dataBETA - seq - GEO NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/info/rnaseqcounts.html]
• 69. Step-by-Step Guide to Download RNA - Seq from Data NCBI GEO [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/step-by-step-guide-download-rna-seq-data-from-ncbi-geo-ahsan-ashfaq-kub0c]
• 70. What Databases Are Available For Rna - Seq Datasets? [https://www.biostars.org/p/46059/]
• 71. GitHub - CebolaLab/RNA-seq: Step-by-step analysis pipeline for RNA-seq data [https://github.com/CebolaLab/RNA-seq]
• 72. Data analysis pipeline for RNA-seq experiments: From differential expression to cryptic splicing - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6373869/]
• 73. A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis | Genome Biology | Full Text [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-0881-8]
• 74. Trans2 express – de novo transcriptome assembly pipeline optimized... [https://plantmethods.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13007-024-01255-7]
• 75. Exploring crop genomes : assembly features, gene prediction... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-024-10521-w]
• 76. BUSCO: Assessing Genome Assembly and Annotation Completeness - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31020564/]
• 77. BUSCO - from QC to gene prediction and phylogenomics [https://busco.ezlab.org/]
• 78. Institute of Bioinformatics WWU Münster [https://bioinformatics.uni-muenster.de/publication_data/P.californicus_annotation/busco.hbi]
• 79. GenomeQC: a quality assessment tool for genome assemblies and gene structure annotations | BMC Genomics | Full Text [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-020-6568-2]
• 80. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/ ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1714791/xml]
• 81. One thousand plant transcriptomes and the phylogenomics of green plants | Nature [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1693-2]
• 82. Publication : USDA ARS [https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=394920]
• 83. Programmable genome engineering and gene modifications for plant biodesign - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590346225001890]
• 84. Unlocking crops’ genetic potential: Advances in genome and epigenome editing of regulatory regions - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369526624001602]
• 85. Scalability Challenges & Strategies in Data Science - KDnuggets [https://www.kdnuggets.com/scalability-challenges-strategies-in-data-science]
• 86. Machine Learning Models with Scaling and Large ... Datasets Data [https://www.sapien.io/blog/scaling-machine-learning-models-with-large-datasets-and-data-labeling]
• 87. AI Algorithms: Challenges with Big Scaling Data Sets [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/3/what-challenges-scaling-ai-algorithms-larger-aoutf]
• 88. Standardizing experimental protocols - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0958166908000773]
• 89. Genomic and Transcriptomic Comparative of... | PLOS One Analysis [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063551]
• 90. drive divergent evolution of caffeine and... Tandem gene duplications [https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-020-00795-3]
• 91. Genome-wide comparative analysis of the transposable elements in the related species Arabidopsis thaliana and Brassica oleracea - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15064405/]
• 92. The roles of segmental and tandem gene duplication in the evolution of large gene families in Arabidopsis thaliana | BMC Plant Biology | Full Text [https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2229-4-10]
• 93. Frontiers | Uncovering the breeding contribution of transposable ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1573546/full]
• 94. Ultra-sensitive detection of transposon insertions across multiple... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03512-x]
• 95. tandem gene duplication: Topics by Science.gov [https://www.science.gov/topicpages/t/tandem+gene+duplication]
• 96. Different orthology inference algorithms generate similar predicted orthogroups among Brassicaceae species - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11788906/]
• 97. LLMs Alignment , Fine- tuning , RAG // most popular... | Medium [https://noailabs.medium.com/llms-alignment-fine-tuning-rag-most-popular-techniques-0d8da4afa9f2]
• 98. Preference Tuning LLMs with Direct Preference Optimization Methods [https://huggingface.co/blog/pref-tuning]
• 99. A Deep Dive into the Trade-Offs of Parameter -Efficient Preference... [https://arxiv.org/html/2406.04879v1]
• 100. Common Methods for Phylogenetic Tree Construction and Their Implementation in R - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117635/]
• 101. OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31727128/]
• 102. Comprehensive integration of single-cell transcriptomic data illuminates the regulatory network architecture of plant cell fate specification - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38798726/]
• 103. Comprehensive integration of single-cell transcriptomic data illuminates the regulatory network architecture of plant cell fate specification - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468265924000477]
• 104. Frontiers | A Sight on Single-Cell Transcriptomics in Plants Through the Prism of Cell-Based Computational Modeling Approaches: Benefits and Challenges for Data Analysis [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.652974/full]
• 105. network reconstruction... | PLOS Genetics Integrating transcriptomic [https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1008367]
• 106. Two different domain generate structural and functional... architectures [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9437623/]
• 107. NLR immune receptors: structure and function in plant disease resistance - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10586772/]
• 108. RefPlantNLR is a comprehensive collection of... | PLOS Biology [https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001124]
• 109. Comparative de novo transcriptome profiles in Asparagus officinalis and A. kiusianus during the early stage of Phomopsis asparagi infection | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02566-7]
• 110. Small family, big impact: RNL helper NLRs and their importance in plant innate immunity | PLOS Pathogens [https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1011315]
• 111. Frontiers | Comparative-genomic analysis reveals dynamic NLR gene loss and gain across Apiaceae species [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2023.1141194/full]
• 112. Tracing the path from conservation to expansion evolutionary insights... [https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-025-06233-2]
• 113. Comparative genomic analysis reveals the difference of NLR immune receptors between anthracnose-resistant and susceptible sorghum cultivars | Phytopathology Research | Full Text [https://phytopatholres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42483-025-00318-4]
• 114. of Comparative evolution demonstrates... analysis gene family [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-025-00805-6?error=cookies_not_supported&code=bb539d98-3d14-4e8c-879e-d2f3fad03716]
• 115. Gene family - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_family]
• 116. Expansions and contractions in gene families of independently-evolved blood-feeding insects | BMC Ecology and Evolution | Full Text [https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-020-01650-3]
• 117. Swill and Pig Manure Substrates Differentially Affected Transcriptome ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39596214/]
• 118. Gene family expansions and contractions are associated with host range in plant pathogens of the genus Colletotrichum | BMC Genomics | Full Text [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-016-2917-6]
• 119. Cross-Species Sequence Comparisons: A Review of Methods and Available Resources - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC430969/]
• 120. Frontiers | PubPlant – a continuously updated online resource for sequenced and published plant genomes [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1603547/full]
• 121. of... | Nature Ecology & Divergent evolutionary trajectories Evolution [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01885-x?error=cookies_not_supported&code=a8dd0a42-c65a-4ced-9d05-afd8565c3031]
• 122. of the NPF6.3(NRT1.1/CHL1)-centered nitrate... Evolutionary trajectory [https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-025-07417-6]
• 123. dynamics and Evolutionary of the... functional divergence [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41180022/]
• 124. Cross-species imputation and comparison of single-cell transcriptomic profiles | Genome Biology | Full Text [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03493-x]
• 125. Cross-species comparison reveals therapeutic vulnerabilities halting glioblastoma progression | Nature Communications [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62528-w]
• 126. From genotype with 1,086 near... | Nature to phenotype [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09637-0?error=cookies_not_supported&code=df5ee568-bfa4-4c7c-bcde-01577fe5e007]
• 127. Frontiers | The Domestication Makeup: Evolution , Survival, and... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2020.00103/full]
• 128. Dual domestications and origin of traits in grapevine evolution [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36862793/]
• 129. Genome-Scale Phylogenetics: Inferring the Plant Tree of Life from 18,896 Gene Trees - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3038350/]
• 130. G2PDiffusion: Cross-Species Genotype - to - Phenotype Prediction via... [https://arxiv.org/html/2502.04684v3]