Extended Data Fig. 6: Evaluation of the impact of genome quality and species domestication on LRR-RLK XII and LRR-RLPID+4LRR comparison.
a LRR-RLK XII and LRR-RLPID+4LRR gene number in SLH and non-SLH species under similar metrics of genome sequencing [third-generation sequencing (TGS), next-generation sequencing (NGS), and Sanger], assembly [chromosome-level and non-chromosome-level; contig N50 size (the length of the shortest contig at 50% of the total assembly length)], and annotation [benchmarking universal single-copy orthologs (BUSCO)]. The distribution of LRR-RLK XII and LRR-RLPID+4LRR gene numbers is represented by the boxplot (centre line: median; box limits: upper and lower quartiles; whiskers: 1.5x interquartile range; outliers not shown). The SLH species and non-SLH species are indicated in salmon and blue, respectively. Pairwise significance was determined by two-sided Mann‒Whitney U test between SLH and non-SLH angiosperms (***: P < 0.001; ****: P < 0.0001). Species lacking the information of genome quality (for example contig N50) were not included in this analysis. b LRR-RLK XII and LRR-RLPID+4LRR gene number in SLH, wild, and domesticated species. The distribution of LRR-RLK XII and LRR-RLPID+4LRR gene numbers is represented by the boxplot (centre line: median; box limits: upper and lower quartiles; whiskers: 1.5x interquartile range; outliers not shown). Pairwise significance was determined by two-sided Mann‒Whitney U test between SLH and non-SLH angiosperms, respectively (ns: P > 0.05; ****: P < 0.0001).
