Skip to main content

Table 1 Genome assembly characteristics and comparisons across Fusarium species

From: Comparative genomics and prediction of conditionally dispensable sequences in legume–infecting Fusarium oxysporum formae speciales facilitates identification of candidate effectors

  F. oxysporum f. sp. medicaginis F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris F. oxysporum f. sp. pisi F. oxysporum f. sp .lycopersici [9]b F. oxysporum brassica [57] F. solani (syn. Nectria haematococca) [11]b F. verticilliodes (syn. Gibberella fujikuroi) [9] F. graminearum (syn. Gibberell zeae) [17]
Genome Abbreviation Fom Foc Fop Fol Fob Fs Fv Fg
Isolate 5190a 38-1 NRRL37622 4287 5176 MPVI 77-13-4 7600 PH-1
Chromosome number Unknown Unknown 16 15 Unknown 17 11 4
Host Medicago spp. Chickpea Pisum Tomato Brassica spp. including Arabidopsis thaliana Pea Maize and cereals Wheat and barley
Total assembly length (bp) 51,139,932 54,813,009 55,188,000 57,720,560 54,767,602 47,328,059 41,104,290 36,346,967
Average length (bp) 12,674 36,961 116,923 3,607,535 6969 2,629,337 3,425,358 7,269,393
Maximum length (bp) 4,225,797 2,918,844 5,895,957 6,854,980 415,898 6,369,736 6,219,215 11,694,295
Minimum length (bp) 200 1000 2000 1,646,460 200 215,166 2,040,847 7,711,129
L50 (bp) 1,632,076 182,371 2,840,000 4,589,937 60,340 3,621,839 4,236,349 8,911,601
N50 10 58 54 6 222 6 5 2
Total sequences 4034 1482 472 15 7858 17 11 4
Total unknown bases (N) 1,929,171 2,262,803 12,221 1,238,430 33 1915 87,573 212,843
GC%c 48.2 48.1 47.6 48.5 47.8 51.5 48.7 48.4
Percentage of de novo predicted repetitive sequencesc 1.5 5.4 8.2 21.9 9.4 3.1 1.3 1.5
Percentage of predicted repetitive sequences based on comparison to known fungal repeats in Repbase 1.0 2.4 2.8 4.4 2.4 1.4 0.8 0.9
CEGMA Analysisa         
CEGMA partial % 98 98 98 97 98 98 96 97
CEGMA partial 243 244 242 241 243 243 239 241
CEGMA complete 239 240 237 237 238 238 235 234
  1. aNumber of complete Conserved Eukaryotic Genes found in the assembly of the core set of 248 defined by Parra et al. [46]
  2. bReconstructed chromosome mapped regions only
  3. cGC content and de novo repeat percentage based on RepeatMasker analysis of scaffolds versus de novo repeats