Preprint
Review

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Tree Fruit and Nut Crops at the Dawn of the Pangenomic Era

Submitted:

06 November 2025

Posted:

10 November 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Tree fruit and nut crops are a critical component of the global economy, producing billions of dollars of value and nourishing billions of humans every year. Improved cultivars and growing practices depend upon an understanding of the molecular basis of tree traits and physiology. Over the past 20 years, the proliferation of reference genomes for tree fruit and nut crop species has transformed the study of genetics in these crops, providing a platform for resequencing analyses of large populations, enabling comparative genomic analyses between distant plant species, and allowing the development of molecular markers for use in breeding. Limitations exist, however, with reference bias and poor transferability of markers preventing widespread applicability in many instances. As third-generation sequencing has become more accurate and accessible, a greater number of reference genomes have become available, enabling higher-quality assemblies and wider sampling of genomic diversity. To facilitate the effective use of multiple closely related genomes to create a reference and comparative genomics platform, tools for the creation of pangenome graphs have been developed, allowing for singular representations of diversity within a species or even a wider genus. Pangenomic analyses at the genus-scale have been conducted for Malus and Citrus, and more tree fruit and nut species are likely to follow. As the number of genome sequences and pangenome resources increases, the importance of generating great quantities of transcriptomic and phenomic data will increase as well. This data is essential in the drive to connect genes to traits, as is needed to develop improved tree fruit and nut crops, which can satisfy global demand.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Trees, generally defined as tall (>5m) woody perennial plants with one primary stem [1], have been cultivated by humans, primarily for their nutrient-rich fruits and nuts, for at least 6000 years [2]. Today, tree fruit and nut crops contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the global economy, providing humans with rich sources of nutrients, supplying 74% of human fruit intake [3,4]. Tree fruit and nut crops are diverse in their utility, including products which are consumed raw or minimally processed (e.g., Pyrus communis), used for oil production (e.g., Olea europea), used to produce beverages (e.g., Coffea arabica), and used to produce processed foods (e.g., Theobroma cacao). These horticultural crops and their rich array of carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, minerals, and secondary metabolites can be preventative against metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and nutritional deficiencies [5,6,7,8,9].
While great strides have been made in reducing undernutrition resulting from deficiencies in caloric or protein intake, in large part due to genetic improvement of cereal crops, other forms of malnutrition remain common in many regions of the world, even as obesity rates climb globally [10,11]. As such, the world is falling short of the goal to eliminate all forms of malnutrition by 2030 (Sustainable Development Goals 2.1 and 2.2) as resolved by the United Nations member states in 2015 [4,12]. In both the developing and developed world, the accessibility and cost of a healthy, varied diet are at least partly to blame [13,14,15]. To make portions of a healthy, varied diet, such as tree fruit and nuts, available and accessible, prices for these products will need to decrease [16]. In the context of a growing global population, this necessitates an increase in supply. With most gains in agricultural productivity coming from improvements in productivity rather than increases in inputs and land usage [17], crop genetic improvement will play a vital role in creating tree fruit and nut crop cultivars that are amenable to high-density production systems. This is an opportunity for rural economic development as well, as smallholder farmers who grow horticultural crops have higher incomes and food security than other farming households [18,19]. As these issues are global in nature, genetic improvements in a wide diversity of tree fruit and nut crops will be necessary to enable this increase in production, including indigenous tree fruit and nut species, which have been historically overlooked by producers and researchers [3,20,21].
Tree fruit and nut crops come from diverse eudicot lineages; consequently, for each crop, specific genetic improvement objectives will depend on the genetic background. The domestication bottlenecks in tree fruit and nut species are relatively mild compared to many annual crops, and the “domestication syndrome”, or suite of traits associated with the domestication process, appears to be different from than in annual crops [22,23]. As a result, while some newly domesticated crops, such as pecan, may retain a long juvenile period, experience alternate bearing, and have a large and unwieldy growth habit similar to their wild progenitors, most of these traits remain problems even in tree fruit and nut crops which humans have cultivated for thousands of years such as apple and European pear [24,25].
A list of common objectives for genetic improvement in tree fruit and nut species are summarized in Table 1. Prioritization of traits for improvement is highly context dependent. For example, experienced growers in the United States do not rate improvements in disease resistance as a high priority in new apple cultivars, yet it is a high priority in new cherry cultivars [26,27]. From an environmental and public health perspective, reducing pesticide applications regardless of crop species is beneficial [28], driving an interest in crops with improved disease resistance [29,30]. The wide array of stakeholder concerns that must be balanced in the process of new cultivar development contributes to diverse crop improvement objectives, with different traits suiting different use cases.
The long life cycles of tree fruit and nut crops, combined with the large size of individuals, create added complexity for both crop genetic improvement and the deployment of improved varieties into commercial growing systems. Most tree species have a long juvenile (immature) period during which they do not flower or bear fruit, which can last over 10 years. Consequently, the development of a new cultivar in these species can last from 10 years to over 50 years [51]. As recent examples, it took approximately 20 years to develop the apple cultivar ‘Cosmic Crisp®’, and longer than 40 years for the pecan cultivar ‘Lakota’ [52,53,54].
This lengthy development period and the resulting high costs make the use of genomics-assisted breeding and biotechnology efforts critical for selecting parents with desirable genetics and identifying individuals with promising traits early in the breeding program. The process of genetic marker-assisted selection, however, relies on well-characterized DNA variant-trait associations [55,56]. Quantitative trait loci-based marker-assisted selection is often unable to predict marker impacts across diverse genotypes reliably, is often poorly validated, and struggles to model complex traits. Consequently, marker-assisted selection has had a relatively small impact on plant genetic improvement [57,58]. Genomic selection, which considers a wider range of markers across the whole genome, shows greater performance in these regards [58,59,60,61,62]. Complex traits are often associated with variants from across the genome, even genomic regions that would not be intuitively associated with the trait of interest, largely due to the highly interconnected nature of genetic regulatory networks [63]. This, combined with the observation that genetic background influences the effects of genetic variants, has led to the proposal of the “omnigenic model”, in which the whole genome is involved in the development of phenotype, and variant effects are poorly transferable between populations [63,64]. While in some rare instances, single variants may have enormous effects (e.g., total resistance to a pathogen conferred by some R genes), even traits like disease resistance tend to be controlled by many loci [65,66,67]. It is increasingly evident that whole-genome information is necessary to form the required trait-variant associations for crop genetic improvement.
Once a new cultivar has been developed and made available, it may still take decades for a new cultivar to accrue a significant market share. Economic risks to growers in adopting new cultivars, lag time between planting and return on investment for growers, access to capital for growers, lack of cultivar name recognition for buyers, and lack of confidence in sufficient supply of new cultivars for retailers, all inhibit the adoption of improved cultivars [51,68,69,70,71]. Due to these obstacles to the development and deployment of improved cultivars, many tree fruit and nut crops are produced primarily using old cultivars. As examples, European pear produced in the United States primarily represents cultivars developed in the 18th and 19th centuries [72], and it was not until 2018 that the 19th-century cultivar ‘Red Delicious’ was overtaken by ‘Gala’ as the most produced apple cultivar in the United States [73]. Improved cultivar adoption, however, is a social and ecological good, with benefits for agricultural sustainability and the economic development of rural areas [74,75,76].
Given the significant barriers to developing and adopting new tree fruit and nut cultivars, it is essential to consider integrating new technologies that can improve the efficiency of the entire endeavor. New long-read sequencing technologies, combined with high-throughput phenotyping, can accelerate the process of developing functional genomic knowledge [77,78], which can then be implemented in the improvement of fruit and nut crops. New reference genome assemblies enable identification of novel genes, identification of phenotypically relevant variants, and characterization of germplasm resources, which can enhance the selection of individuals with superior traits in breeding programs, all of which are further enabled by third-generation sequencing [79].
Mutagenesis can introduce novel genetic variation to accelerate the improvement of crops. Mutation breeding has been used for many decades to introduce mutations in a non-directed manner in a wide range of crops, including tree fruit and nut crops, though primarily in ornamental and herbaceous annual crops [80,81]. Whereas previously many novel variants arising from mutation breeding may have gone undetected, using third generation sequencing, it is more efficient to use sequencing data to identify mutations, particularly large structural variants [80,82]. Such an approach can reveal the functional genomics of structural variants [48,83], which may have difficult-to-predict impacts on phenotypes at present [84]. Options for site-directed mutagenesis exist now as well. The now dominant CRISPR/Cas based system was first used on a tree fruit species in Citrus sinensis in 2014 [85]; systems for gene editing without the integration of transgenes into the host plant now exist [86], enabling gene editing not just for the exploration of gene function but also for the creation of superior crops. These methods, however, are dependent upon in vitro cultivation, which, especially for tree fruit and nut species, is a time-consuming process, often requiring highly genotype-specific protocols to overcome recalcitrance [87]. Following recent development of a viral delivery mechanism for transgene-free germline gene editing in Arabidopsis, the application of this method to tree fruit and nut crops would be exceptionally impactful, allowing the highly limiting in vitro cultivation step in gene editing to be bypassed [88]. The United States, Japan, and recently the European Union have adopted regulatory standards that allow for the commercialization of cultivars produced through gene editing, which are free of transgenes [89,90,91], providing a promising avenue for the creation of improved cultivars.
While the regulatory burden of developing new cultivars via gene editing has decreased, this approach depends upon precise knowledge of the functional genomics of the species of interest; presently, this is a limitation to the efficient improvement of tree fruit and nut crops [92,93]. Whether crop improvement in the coming years is done by molecular-assisted breeding or by gene editing, an improved understanding of the genetics of tree fruit and nut species is necessary to produce sustainable crops that are more suitable for growers, consumers, and society at large. Fortunately, advances in the tools available in genomics, combined with other “omics” disciplines such as transcriptomics and phenomics, can accelerate the understanding of tree fruit and nut genomics to make these improved cultivars possible, whether by breeding or gene editing, and enable precision management of existing cultivars.

2. Understanding Genomes

Modern studies in characterizing plant genomes can be generally divided into two categories: reference-free and reference-guided. De novo genome assembly is a reference-free method that can be used to identify genes and regulatory regions, identify evolutionary processes and relationships by reference to other genomes, and serve as reference material for future experiments in the characterization of an organism’s biology. Three parameters determine the quality of a genome assembly: 1) correctness, 2) completeness, and 3) contiguity [94,95,96]. All three characteristics of an assembly are essential: an incorrect assembly can misdirect researchers, an incomplete assembly may mislead through omission, and an assembly that has poor contiguity limits knowledge on the organization of the genome, a core component of its function. All assemblies, however, are imperfect with regard to each of these three aspects; this has led to the concept of the genomic assembly as a hypothesis about the underlying genome of the organism of interest [97]. Progressive improvements in sequencing technology, however, have allowed more of these assemblies to come closer to accurately representing the genome of the organisms they purport to describe. The first Citrus genomic assembly, for example, Citrus sinensis cv. ‘Valencia’ dihaploid line, had a highly fragmented reference genome (assembly N50 = 49.9 kb) generated solely using Illumina sequencing data. Now, a telomere-to-telomere phased genome is available for ‘Valencia’ using ultra-high sequencing depth PacBio continuous long read data [98]. Reference-free methods also exist for detecting genetic variation between samples, eliminating the need for genomic assembly, although this approach is less common [99,100].
Reference-guided genome analysis methods utilize a pre-existing reference genome to discover genetic variation in the broader pool of samples. Resequencing analysis seeks to determine the genetic variation between individuals by reference to a genomic assembly, allowing for the screening of much larger populations than is typically possible in reference-free analyses. Resequencing analysis can be used to detect single-nucleotide polymorphisms, small variants, large structural variants, copy number variation, phylogenetic relationships, and population genetic structure, all of which can provide information relevant to functional significance [101,102,103]. While second-generation/short-read sequencing may be adequate for many resequencing analyses (as opposed to reference-free methods, where advances in third-generation/long-read sequencing have made second-generation sequencing obsolete), these platforms have difficulty in the detection of large structural variants [82]. Reference-based assembly methods also exist, leveraging existing assemblies to guide the construction of a new assembly for a related organism, to enable higher-quality assemblies [104,105,106]. While reference-based methods are advantageous in that they enable the detection of genetic variation or novel assemblies at a lower cost, reference bias is a potential issue in such experiments. Reference bias typically favors the reference variant at a variable site on the genome [107,108], and DNA sequence reads can fail to map entirely, especially in regions of the reference genome that are specific to that individual [109]. These issues have been a driver in the increasing number of de novo genomic assemblies.

3. First and Second-Generation Sequencing: From Model Species to Reference Genomes

The first plant genome, that of the model species Arabidopsis thaliana, was sequenced using the Sanger sequencing method, with a complete assembly by 2000 [110]. The expense of Sanger sequencing for whole genome assembly generally made it prohibitively expensive to sequence organisms other than model organisms and humans, with few exceptions. A highly inbred, transgenic cultivar of papaya (Carica papaya cv. ‘SunUp’) was the first fruit species to be sequenced utilizing Sanger sequencing [111]. In the late 2000s, there was a rapid decrease in the cost of sequencing on a per-megabase basis, from about $1,000/MB to around $1, driven by the commercial release of second-generation sequencing platforms, most notably Illumina, which introduced a massively parallel approach to sequencing [112]. While Illumina platforms had shorter read lengths relative to Sanger sequencing, the quantity of data that could be produced enabled the sequencing of a wider breadth of plant species. The first temperate tree fruit species for which a reference genomic assembly was reported in 2010 was apple (Malus domestica cv. ‘Golden Delicious’) using data collected from a combination of Illumina and 454 platforms [113]. The 2010s saw a rapid increase in the number of reference genomes released for tree fruit and nut species, facilitated by these new technologies (Table 2). Reference genomes generally proliferated in accordance with the economic value of the crop. Tree fruit and nut crops of high global economic importance, such as apple [113], peach [114], and coffee [115], had published reference genomes in the early 2010s, whereas crops with more regional economic significance, such as pecan [116], chestnut [117], and guava [118] did not have reference genomes until years later. While most reference genome assemblies of this era utilize Illumina sequencing data, some notable exceptions exist, such as the Coffea canephora reference genome, using Sanger and 454 data [115], or the Pyrus communis reference genome, which was assembled solely using 454 data [119].
Although these reference genomes often had poor contiguity due to their inability to resolve long repetitive regions, many genomic features of interest could still be studied. Evolutionary history and phylogenetics could be assessed with greater resolution, SNVs and small structural variants could be reliably detected, gene duplications and gene loss could be evaluated, and protein-coding gene sequences could be identified in full [137]. These genomes also allowed for the use of reference-based genomics and transcriptomics methods on related germplasm, revealing genes and variants of interest in the genetic improvement and genetic history of diverse tree fruit and nut crops. For example, using the 2010 ‘Golden Delicious’ assembly, multiple SNP-arrays for genotyping in apple were developed [138,139], the inheritance of ‘Fuji’ haplotypes in ‘Fuji’ descendants were surveyed [140], insertions and deletions in bud sports responsible for variations in color and fruit timing were identified [141], S-RNase genotypes responsible for pollen compatibility could be determined for cultivars [142,143], selective sweeps in the evolutionary history of apple could be identified [144], and SNPs related to a wide variety of traits including fruit flavor, disease resistance, and bitter pit susceptibility could be detected [145,146]. Similar analyses have followed the publication of reference genomes of other tree fruit and nut crops.

4. Third Generation Sequencing: High-Quality Reference Genomes to Pangenomes

Third-generation sequencing, also referred to as long-read sequencing due to its ability to sequence uninterrupted DNA fragments that are many times longer than those generated from Illumina sequencing (100-500 bp vs. 10,000-500,000+ bp), has not only allowed for the generation of higher-quality reference genomes but has also contributed to the creation of the first graph pangenomes in eukaryotes [147,148,149]. A pangenome is a representation of all the sampled genomic variation within a population and can be constructed at a species or a genus level. The sequencing platforms of two companies, Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) and Oxford Nanopore, are the primary platforms of this generation of sequencing. PacBio platforms use a sequencing-by-synthesis approach. In the continuous long read (CLR) method, sample DNA is ligated to hairpin adapters, and phospholinked nucleotides produce a signal as a polymerase incorporates them; the circular consensus sequencing (CCS)/”HiFi” method can sequence the same ligated molecule multiple times to create a consensus sequence with higher accuracy [150,151,152]. Nanopore platforms produce sequencing data by measuring electrical potential as nucleotides pass through a protein nanopore, and these electrical signatures can be used to predict a specific nucleotide [153] Sequencing continues until the molecule has fully transited the pore or becomes stuck, enabling reads over 1Mb in length. The primary advantages of Nanopore sequencing are the ability to sequence longer DNA fragments and a lower overall cost, while the primary advantage of PacBio sequencing is higher raw read quality [154,155].
In the 2010s, third-generation sequencing methods were significantly more expensive and provided lower accuracy compared to Illumina sequencing. Nanopore sequencing had a median nucleotide accuracy of ~60% (R7 flow cells) in 2015, improving to ~80-90% (R9 flow cells) in 2016. Meanwhile, PacBio CLR offered ~85-90% accuracy, and PacBio CCS offered >98% accuracy in practice [156,157]. This issue was typically overcome by combining the second and third-generation sequencing platforms, with third-generation reads being used to improve assembly contiguity and completeness of assemblies [158]. Directly correcting third-generation sequencing reads with Illumina data allowed for the use of third-generation sequencing data in resequencing experiments [159]. Continual improvements in the cost per base sequenced and raw read quality (>99% with Nanopore R10.4 flow cells, >99.9% with PacBio CCS) have led to more genomic assemblies utilizing only third-generation sequencing platforms [149]. Inclusion of Illumina data is unsupported by many high performing assembly tools for third-generation sequencing data such as hifiasm and Verkko, and hybrid assembly tools which can integrate Illumina data often have higher computational demands and lower performance [160,161,162]. Hi-C sequencing, a form of all-versus-all interaction profiling that allows for the determination of genome organization by chromatin crosslinking, is often used to complement standard third-generation sequencing data to improve contiguity and resolve large misassemblies [163,164]. This form of hybrid assembly is particularly common in modern genomic reference assemblies, and integration into assembly algorithms is provided in some tools, such as Hifiasm [160]. Combining Nanopore and PacBio reads is another form of hybrid assembly used in reference genome construction, which is supported by multiple assembly tools [160,165]. Hybrid assembly now often entails the combination of multiple forms of third-generation sequencing data, reflecting the maturity of the technology.
To realize the full potential of third-generation sequencing, purpose-made algorithms for the handling and assembly of noisy, long-read data have been developed; over 900 published packages have been catalogued by long-read-tools.org [166]. While improvements in DNA sequence read accuracy have been driven in part by advancements in the actual sequencing methodology, with both Nanopore and PacBio platforms improving from <90% accuracy to >99% accuracy over the past decade, algorithmic correction of raw reads has also contributed to improvements in the usability of third-generation sequencing data. Tools for the assembly of third-generation sequencing data often include error correction as a step preceding overlap calculation. Scalability is a key issue in the analysis of long-read sequencing data, especially in the genomics of eukaryotic organisms; tools that scale poorly to large genomes, such as Canu, have been increasingly replaced by faster alternatives such as Hifiasm [160,165,167]. With new error correction and assembly tools, it is now possible to create gapless genomic assemblies using Nanopore sequencing alone, even in eukaryotes with large genomes [168].
With the expanding accessibility and quality of third-generation sequencing-enabled genomics projects, these methods are now being applied to tree fruit and nut crops. As a result, species with genomes that had been assembled using second-generation sequencing data now possess far more advanced and improved genomic assemblies. Representative of improvements in sequencing technology over the past 15 years, the previously mentioned reference genome for the ‘Golden Delicious’ cultivar of apple [113], was assembled with greater contiguity (N50: 111.6 kb) using Illumina and PacBio data in 2016 [169], and finally assembled telomere-to-telomere, haplotype-resolved using a combination of PacBio CCS, PacBio Hi-C, and Nanopore data in 2024 [170]. Advancements in sequencing technology have enabled the genomic assembly of crops with lower global economic relevance, such as persimmon and cashew (Table 2).
Resequencing analysis is also aided by advances in third-generation sequencing. Structural variants (SVs), genomic variants greater than 50bp in length, make up a small number of variants in the genome, but contribute to a relatively high proportion of the variation between individuals. While short reads are not reliable for the detection of many SVs, especially complex SVs, long reads are much more capable of resolving these variants; this variation has been relatively unexplored as a consequence of sequencing technology limitations [82,171]. While most attention has been paid to the revolutionary impact of third-generation sequencing on de novo genomic assembly, its ability to improve reference-based methods also aids in the connection of genetic variants to crop plant phenotypes.
A new form of genomic construction, the pangenome, has also been enabled in eukaryotes by third-generation sequencing. Pangenomic analysis of prokaryotic organisms has been feasible for approximately 20 years due to their shorter and less repetitive genomes [172,173]. A pangenome (sometimes called a “super pangenome” when applied to the genus level) is a set of genomes that encompasses a large proportion of the diversity within a given taxon, generally a species or genus [148,174]. Whereas reference genome assemblies have typically been made for cultivars of species with high economic relevance, pangenomes, especially super pangenomes, normally include genotypes that are not under cultivation or are not major components of commercial cultivation [148]. This approach can distinguish regions of the genome that are shared among all members of the taxon, known as the core genome, from regions that are not present among all members of the taxon, referred to as the variable or dispensable genome [174]. As it has become increasingly apparent that genetic background and thus the whole genome influences the effects of alleles on traits [63,64], pangenomic analysis, based on the whole genome analysis of many individuals with diverse backgrounds, seeks to enable genomic analyses that have more predictive power than previous reference-based studies.
Pangenome analyses of tree fruit and nut crops started with the extensively cultivated Malus and Citrus, with Malus being represented by 30 accessions from 30 species, and Citrus being represented by six new assemblies from six species combined with six existing assemblies and six assemblies from Citrus-related genera [175,176]. These analyses allowed for taxonomic reclassification, the identification of selective sweeps, and the identification of genes essential for cultivation value, such as the role of PH4 in citric acid accumulation in Citrus. These analyses also produced pangenome graphs, a single graph-based assembly composed of sequence nodes connected by edges that attempt to model all genetic variants within a taxon of interest; construction of a pangenome graph is generally performed using haplotype assemblies as inputs [177]. For Eukaryotic organisms, Minigraph and Minigraph-Cactus are the most commonly used tools for pangenome graph construction, the former producing a graph of structural variants, and the latter building from a structural variation graph to create a “lossless” graph which includes small variants [177,178,179]. PGGB is another tool for constructing pangenome graphs at all scales. Unlike Minigraph and Minigraph-Cactus, it does not rely on a fixed reference, but it has poor scaling due to its all-vs.-all alignment stage [177,180]. As plant genera are often quite divergent and rich in structural variation, the development of computationally efficient and scalable references may be particularly useful. Pangenome graphs can provide references that can be used in resequencing studies to decrease the reference biases of isolated reference genomes and significantly improve error rates, especially aiding in the detection of rare structural variants [181,182,183]. Where many single genome references may omit relatively common genetic variants within a clade, leading to issues such as missing heritability in GWAS experiments, variant calling with the aid of a pangenome graph enables the detection of more variants that may be influential in traits of interest, such as fruit soluble solids [184]. One ensemble pipeline reported a F1-statistic of 0.95 using 5X coverage 150bp paired Illumina reads when using 50 member pangenome graphs in varied plant lineages [185]; pangenome-enabled high quality mapping even at very low coverage may enable resequencing analyses with far broader scope.
The relative ease of pangenome analysis and pangenome graph construction using third-generation sequencing opens new possibilities for rapidly gaining an understanding of the genetics of lesser-cultivated and orphan crop species, enabling the application of improvement methods such as marker-assisted breeding and gene editing, which have primarily been applied to more intensively cultivated crops [186,187,188]. Pangenomics also creates opportunities for the assessment and usage of wild relatives in crop improvement efforts, either by hybridization or the identification of useful variants in wild germplasm, which can be introduced via gene editing [189,190,191]. As the volume of genomic data rapidly increases, further integration of other “omics” data is essential to make the most significant impact for crop genetic improvement.

5. Transcriptomics: A Tool for Identifying Function and Gene-Linked Variation

Transcriptomics, the study of the sum of RNA transcripts within an organism, is complementary to genomics. Identifying genes and their expression across diverse environmental and developmental conditions is essential in making effective use of genomic data. Annotation of reference genomes with expressed regions, whether based on RNA sequencing evidence or predicted in silico, is upstream of most comparative genomic analyses [192]. RNA sequencing is also a typical method for the selection of candidate genes for traits of interest; by comparing gene expression levels under different conditions, inferences can be made about gene function at scale, which can be refined with more targeted experiments [193,194]. RNA sequencing can also be used for the accurate detection of genetic variants in coding regions [195,196], though this approach is less common.
Concurrently with the enormous advancements in DNA sequencing technology over the past 20 years, there have been significant advances in RNA sequencing. Before the advent of second-generation sequencing, studies aiming to detect quantitative differences in RNA expression generally relied on microarrays or RT-qPCR, measuring changes in expression of a relatively small proportion of transcripts in an organism [197,198]. As a means of genomic annotation, Sanger sequencing of cDNA was a typical approach. The ability to conduct massively parallel sequencing on all transcripts within an organism (first converted into cDNA) expanded the ability for researchers to identify genes responsible for specific responses and phenotypes, even with limited pre-existing hypotheses, as well as increasing the throughput of gene annotation for genomic assemblies. Although some early experiments utilized 454 pyrosequencing of cDNA for RNA-Seq in plants, including tree fruit and nut crops [199,200,201], the vast majority of RNA-Seq experiments have utilized Illumina sequencing, with 95.6% of RNA-Seq data in NCBI SRA being Illumina data as of June 2025. At first, a paucity of effective tools for de novo transcriptome assembly was a limiting factor in the transcriptomics of model species, particularly where no reference genome was available, but a wide variety of computational tools for assembly, quality control, and downstream analysis have developed in response to the widespread use of RNA-Seq [202,203]. Second-generation RNA-Seq has been used to explore a wide array of traits in tree fruit and nut crops, including fruit size, fruit color, fruit development, fruit abscission, water use efficiency, dormancy, secondary metabolite biosynthesis, senescence, disease resistance, and cold stress [204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211]. The ability to apply RNA-Seq to nearly any experimental condition, trait of interest, and tissue type has made it a highly flexible method for discovering genes relevant to crop genetic improvement.
Third-generation sequencing platforms, with their higher maximum read length, are capable of sequencing entire RNA transcripts in a single read, both from cDNA and native RNA molecules [212,213]. While throughput may not be as high as in Illumina sequencing, transcript identification is more sensitive to read length and quality than data quantity, indicating a valuable role for third-generation sequencing in transcriptomics, especially as read quality continues to improve [214]. Beyond the ability to determine full gene isoforms without bioinformatic analysis, these methods can be performed without PCR amplification, as in Illumina, thereby eliminating a potential source of bias [215]. RNA modifications can also be directly sequenced, which has been applied to discover RNA methylation as a means of resistance to fungal pathogens in Malus domestica [216], and for the discovery of novel gene isoforms in Citrus [217], as examples. Despite this, Illumina remains the default platform for RNA-Seq. Relative to chromosomes within genomes, transcripts within transcriptomes are short and have low repetitive content, enabling adequate and effective mapping and assembly even with short reads, making the low cost and high throughput of Illumina sequencing primary considerations for many RNA-Seq experiments, especially for quantitative experiments where reference transcriptomes are available [218].
Just as collections of genomic assemblies can be used for pangenomic analysis, collections of transcriptomic assemblies can be used for pantranscriptomic analysis. While this approach cannot capture the genetic diversity present in the unexpressed regions, the small size of the transcriptome and relative ease of transcriptomic assembly makes it an appealing target for such analyses, which can include more individuals at a lower cost than pangenomic analyses. The pantranscriptome concept was first applied to maize (Zea mays), sequencing the RNA of 503 highly inbred individuals [219]. Among tree fruit and nuts, only Asian Pear (Pyrus pyrifolia) has had pantranscriptomic analysis, surveying 506 individuals, identifying selection against resistance genes in the domestication process, and relationships between stone cells, fruit anthocyanins, and stress resistance [220]. As in genomics, the ability to make these comparative analyses relies upon high-quality phenotypic data for a wide variety of individuals.

6. Phenomics

One of the primary goals of genomics is to link genetic sequences to their corresponding phenotypes. Accurate predictions enable informed decisions to be made during the process of plant genetic improvement and in the management of currently existing plant genotypes [221,222]. The collection of phenotypic data in tree fruit and nut crops poses a unique challenge. While the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana is about 25cm tall, a mature pecan tree is generally taller than 20 meters. Even simple agronomic measurements, such as height and yield, may require exponentially more effort as a result. Just as spatial scales involved in tree fruit and nut phenomics pose issues, the temporal scales pose problems as well. While Arabidopsis thaliana can complete its lifecycle in 6 weeks, the juvenile period of many tree fruit and nut crops can be 10 years or longer. The difficulty in collecting adequate phenotypic data for most field-grown crops has been termed the “phenotyping bottleneck”. It is a significant limitation on the understanding of gene function in many crops [223]. While new sequencing platforms have enabled the detection of more genetic variants, including large SVs, it has been acknowledged that functional information about these variants is scarce, a major limitation in applying these newly generated forms of data. New tools for maximizing throughput, automating processes, and collecting new forms of data have been developed in the hope of closing this gap.
Tools for phenotypic measurement of plants are abundant. Many aspects of plant health and physiology can be determined by spectral measurements, thereby eliminating the need for hands-on and destructive chemical assays in many circumstances. Chlorophyll content, chlorophyll fluorescence, anthocyanin content, carotenoid content, and thermal infrared emission can all be used to measure plant health and physiological responses under an array of conditions [224,225,226,227]. More specific analyses of chlorophyll fluorescence, such as Fv/Fm, a measure of photosynthetic efficiency, can be used as broadly applicable measures of plant stress [228].
Tools for rapid non-spectral measurements have also become available. LIDAR is frequently used for the measurement of plant height and 3D structure and is sufficiently precise to be used on small plant species such as wheat [229]. Real-time measurements of plant or fruit gas exchange and physiological processes are possible with sensors for O2, CO2, and ethylene [230,231]. Thin, non-obtrusive sensors, which can be placed on plant surfaces, have been developed for measuring a range of plant phenotypes, including elongation, leaf water status, temperature, bioelectrical potential, and stress response [232]. Root systems can be imaged in their native state using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanning systems [233,234].
High-throughput assessment of plant phenotypes typically requires some degree of automation. Advancements in robotics and the increasing availability of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) over the past decade have made this more widely accessible. UAVs, often equipped with multispectral cameras or LIDAR sensors, can measure large areas of cultivated plants of any size in short amounts of time, ranging from field crops to forest trees [235,236,237]. Ground-level autonomous phenotyping systems have also been developed [238]. While high-throughput phenotyping in the field can be an effective means of studying many traits, controlled-environment systems can enable studies into rare environmental conditions or apply phenotyping tools that are unsuited to field conditions [239,240]. Open-source plans for automated phenomics chambers have become available, making systems that can provide reproducible phenotypic measurements accessible to more researchers [241,242,243]. For tree fruit and nut crops, growth chambers are unfortunately too small for mature trees, but relatively young trees can still be assessed with respect to a wide variety of stress conditions, which may be difficult to replicate in the field.
In vitro systems are often not ideal for phenomics, as they do not accurately replicate ex vitro conditions. Plants in vitro are typically cultivated in carbohydrate-rich media without roots, generally under stable conditions and relatively low light. The ability to examine the phenotypes of large trees on a small spatial and temporal scale, however, makes this approach appealing where it can be applied. In Citrus, in vitro assessment of mutants’ salt stress tolerance was found to predict ex vitro salt stress tolerance, although fine comparisons between salt-tolerant genotypes were not reliable in vitro [244,245]. Traits such as drought tolerance, salt tolerance, herbicide resistance, and pathogen resistance have been successfully tested in vitro [246,247,248,249,250,251]. While only a limited range of traits can be studied under in vitro conditions, when applicable, it can be a valuable tool for developing preliminary insights into plant phenotypic responses at a low cost and in a short amount of time.

7. Conclusion

Recent rapid improvements in DNA sequencing technologies have led to new opportunities in exploring the functional genomics of tree fruit and nut crops, especially in conjunction with advances in other “omics” fields. Third-generation sequencing has expanded the capabilities of genomics researchers, particularly in the tasks of de novo assembly of highly complete and contiguous genomes, as well as the detection of large structural variants. The pangenome, a form of genomic analysis that has become possible due to advances in third-generation sequencing, allows for highly detailed explorations of genetic diversity, including wild germplasm, which often possess traits informative on climate resilience and domestication. Together with advances in transcriptomics and phenomics, the ability to connect genotypes and phenotypes to advance knowledge of functional genomics is greater than ever before.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L. and A.D.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.; writing—review and editing, A.D.; supervision, A.D.; funding acquisition, A.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

“This research was funded by Texas A&M AgriLife Hatch Project #TEX0-9950-0 and startup funds from Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Texas A&M University to AD. JL acknowledges graduate research assistantship support from the Department of Horticultural Sciences at Texas A&M University.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created in the process of this review.

Acknowledgments

None.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Gschwantner, T.; Schadauer, K.; Vidal, C.; Lanz, A.; Tomppo, E.; Di Cosmo, L.; Robert, N.; Duursma, D.E.; Gschwantner, M.L.; Schadauer, T.; et al. Common Tree Definitions for National Forest Inventories in Europe. Silva Fennica 2009, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Spiegel-Roy, P. Domestication of Fruit Trees. In Developments in Agricultural and Managed Forest Ecology; BARIGOZZI, C., Ed.; Elsevier, 1986; Vol. 16, pp. 201–211 ISBN 0166-2287.
  3. McMullin, S.; Njogu, K.; Wekesa, B.; Gachuiri, A.; Ngethe, E.; Stadlmayr, B.; Jamnadass, R.; Kehlenbeck, K. Developing Fruit Tree Portfolios That Link Agriculture More Effectively with Nutrition and Health: A New Approach for Providing Year-Round Micronutrients to Smallholder Farmers. Food Secur 2019, 11, 1355–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO THE STATE OF FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION IN THE WORLD; Rome, 2024.
  5. Liu, S.; Manson, J.E.; Lee, I.-M.; Cole, S.R.; Hennekens, C.H.; Willett, W.C.; Buring, J.E. Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: The Women’s Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr 2000, 72, 922–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cano-Marquina, A.; Tarín, J.J.; Cano, A. The Impact of Coffee on Health. Maturitas 2013, 75, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Luo, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ding, Y.; Shan, Z.; Chen, S.; Yu, M.; Hu, F.B.; Liu, L. Nut Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes, Cardiovascular Disease, and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 2014, 100, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Buil-Cosiales, P.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Ruiz-Canela, M.; Díez-Espino, J.; García-Arellano, A.; Toledo, E. Consumption of Fruit or Fiber-Fruit Decreases the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in a Mediterranean Young Cohort. Nutrients 2017, 9, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Veronese, N.; Demurtas, J.; Celotto, S.; Caruso, M.G.; Maggi, S.; Bolzetta, F.; Firth, J.; Smith, L.; Schofield, P.; Koyanagi, A.; et al. Is Chocolate Consumption Associated with Health Outcomes? An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Clinical Nutrition 2019, 38, 1101–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Evenson, R.E.; Gollin, D. Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science (1979) 2003, 300, 758–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gómez, M.I.; Barrett, C.B.; Raney, T.; Pinstrup-Andersen, P.; Meerman, J.; Croppenstedt, A.; Carisma, B.; Thompson, B. Post-Green Revolution Food Systems and the Triple Burden of Malnutrition. Food Policy 2013, 42, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. UN General Assembly Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf: United Nations, 2015.
  13. Chastre, C.; Duffield, A.; Kindness, H.; LeJeune, S.; Taylor, A. The Minimum Cost of a Healthy Diet: Findings from Piloting a New Methodology in Four Study Locations. London: Save the Children UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  14. Temple, N.J.; Steyn, N.P. The Cost of a Healthy Diet: A South African Perspective. Nutrition 2011, 27, 505–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Barosh, L.; Friel, S.; Engelhardt, K.; Chan, L. The Cost of a Healthy and Sustainable Diet – Who Can Afford It? Aust N Z J Public Health 2014, 38, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Herforth, A.; Bai, Y.; Venkat, A.; Mahrt, K.; Ebel, A.; Masters, W.A. Cost and Affordability of Healthy Diets across and within Countries: Background Paper for The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. FAO Agricultural Development Economics Technical Study No. 9; Food & Agriculture Org., 2020; Vol. 9; ISBN 925133725X.
  17. Fuglie, K.O.; Morgan, S.; Jelliffe, J. World Agricultural Production, Resource Use, and Productivity, 1961–2020. 2024.
  18. Roy, D.; Thorat, A. Success in High Value Horticultural Export Markets for the Small Farmers: The Case of Mahagrapes in India. World Dev 2008, 36, 1874–1890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nomura, H.; Fikadu, A.A.; Gebre, G.G.; Shah, P. Analysis of the Smallholder Horticulture Empowerment and Promotion (“SHEP”): Intervention on Income and Food Security in Ethiopia; JICA Ogata Sadako Research Institute for Peace and Development, 2024.
  20. Kennedy, G.; Lee, W.T.K.; Termote, C.; Charrondiere, R.; Yen, J.; Tung, A. Guidelines on Assessing Biodiverse Foods in Dietary Intake Surveys. 2017.
  21. Dawson, I.D.; Hendre, P.; Powell, W.; Sila, D.; McMullin, S.; Simons, T.; Revoredo-Giha, C.; Odeny, D.A.; Barnes, A.P.; Graudal, L. Supporting Human Nutrition in Africa through the Integration of New and Orphan Crops into Food Systems: Placing the Work of the African Orphan Crops Consortium in Context. 2018.
  22. Miller, A.J.; Gross, B.L. From Forest to Field: Perennial Fruit Crop Domestication. Am J Bot 2011, 98, 1389–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fuller, D.Q. Long and Attenuated: Comparative Trends in the Domestication of Tree Fruits. Veg Hist Archaeobot 2018, 27, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Monselise, S.P.; Goldschmidt, E.E. Alternate Bearing in Fruit Trees. Hortic Rev (Am Soc Hortic Sci) 1982, 4, 128–173. [Google Scholar]
  25. Conner, P.J.; Worley, R.E. Alternate Bearing Intensity of Pecan Cultivars. HortScience 2000, 6, 1067–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yue, C.; Gallardo, R.K.; Luby, J.; Rihn, A.; McFerson, J.R.; McCracken, V.; Bedford, D.; Brown, S.; Evans, K.; Weebadde, C.; et al. An Investigation of U.S. Apple Producers’ Trait Prioritization—Evidence from Audience Surveys. HortScience horts 2013, 48, 1378–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yue, C.; Gallardo, R.K.; Luby, J.J.; Rihn, A.L.; McFerson, J.R.; McCracken, V.; Oraguzie, N.; Weebadde, C.; Sebolt, A.; Iezzoni, A. An Evaluation of US Tart and Sweet Cherry Producers Trait Prioritization: Evidence from Audience Surveys. HortScience 2014, 49, 931–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Naji, Z.; Sattam, R.; Alsalihi, M. The Effect of Pesticides on Public Health: A Review. South Asian Research Journal of Biology and Applied Biosciences 2024, 6, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. EU Joint Research Center New Genomic Techniques Can Help Cut Pesticides Use or Shield from Celiac Disease. The Joint Research Centre: EU Science Hub, 2023.
  30. UN FAO/WHO Report of the 17th FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management; Rome, 2024.
  31. Song, X.; Xi, S.; Zhang, J.; Ma, Q.; Zhou, Y.; Pei, D.; Xu, H.; Zhang, J. ‘Zhong Ning Sheng’: A New Distant Hybrid Cultivar of Walnut. HortScience 2019, 54, 2257–2259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mahmoud, L.M.; Dutt, M.; Vincent, C.I.; Grosser, J.W. Salinity-Induced Physiological Responses of Three Putative Salt Tolerant Citrus Rootstocks. Horticulturae 2020, 6, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Autio, W.; Robinson, T.; Blatt, S.; Cochran, D.; Francescato, P.; Hoover, E.; Kushad, M.; Lang, G.; Lordan, J.; Miller, D. Budagovsky, Geneva, Pillnitz, and Malling Apple Rootstocks Affect ‘Honeycrisp’ Performance over Eight Years in the 2010 NC-140 ‘Honeycrisp’ Apple Rootstock Trial. J. Amer. Pomol. Soc 2020, 74, 182–195. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pang, H.; Yan, Q.; Zhao, S.; He, F.; Xu, J.; Qi, B.; Zhang, Y. Knockout of the S-Acyltransferase Gene, PbPAT14, Confers the Dwarf Yellowing Phenotype in First Generation Pear by ABA Accumulation. Int J Mol Sci 2019, 20, 6347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gonsalves, D. Transgenic Papaya: Development, Release, Impact and Challenges. Adv Virus Res 2006, 67, 317–354. [Google Scholar]
  36. Grosser, J.W.; Gmitter, F.G.; Louzada, E.S.; Chandler, J.L. Production of Somatic Hybrid and Autotetraploid Breeding Parents for Seedless Citrus Development. HortScience 1992, 27, 1125–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yadollahi, A.; Arzani, K.; Ebadi, A.; Wirthensohn, M.; Karimi, S. The Response of Different Almond Genotypes to Moderate and Severe Water Stress in Order to Screen for Drought Tolerance. Sci Hortic 2011, 129, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Qin, S.; Xu, G.; He, J.; Li, L.; Ma, H.; Lyu, D. A Chromosome-Scale Genome Assembly of Malus Domestica, a Multi-Stress Resistant Apple Variety. Genomics 2023, 115, 110627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Serra, S.; Sheick, R.; Roeder, S.; Musacchi, S. WA 38 Abscission and Fruit Development in an Open Pollination Scenario. In Proceedings of the XII International Symposium on Integrating Canopy, Rootstock and Environmental Physiology in Orchard Systems 1346; 2021; pp. 129–138. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sandefur, P.; Oraguzie, N.; Peace, C. A DNA Test for Routine Prediction in Breeding of Sweet Cherry Fruit Color, Pav-Rf-SSR. Molecular Breeding 2016, 36, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Machida, Y.; Kajiura, I.; Sato, Y.; Kotobuki, K.; Kozono, T. Genetic Information on Flesh Firmness and the Characteristics of Selected Clones of Japanese Pear. Results of the Fifth Japanese Pear Breeding Programme. Bulletin of the Fruit Tree Research Station 1984, 11, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
  42. Souleyre, E.J.F.; Chagné, D.; Chen, X.; Tomes, S.; Turner, R.M.; Wang, M.Y.; Maddumage, R.; Hunt, M.B.; Winz, R.A.; Wiedow, C.; et al. The AAT1 Locus Is Critical for the Biosynthesis of Esters Contributing to “ripe Apple” Flavour in “Royal Gala” and “Granny Smith” Apples. Plant Journal 2014, 78, 903–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yang, S.; Yu, J.; Yang, H.; Zhao, Z. Genetic Analysis and QTL Mapping of Aroma Volatile Compounds in the Apple Progeny ‘Fuji’ × ‘Cripps Pink. ’ Front Plant Sci 2023, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Guellaoui, I.; Ben Amar, F.; Triki, M.A.; Ayadi, M.; Boubaker, M. Chemlali Mhassen: New Olive Cultivar Derived from Crossbreeding Program in Tunisia with High Oil Quality and Productivity. J. Sci. Agric 2021, 5, 32–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Carter, N. Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: ArcticTM Apple (Malus x Domestica) Events GD743 and GS784. United States Department of Agriculture—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  46. Revord, R.S.; Miller, G.; Meier, N.A.; Webber, J.B.; Romero-Severson, J.; Gold, M.A.; Lovell, S.T. A Roadmap for Participatory Chestnut Breeding for Nut Production in the Eastern United States. Front Plant Sci 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mase, N.; Sawamura, Y.; Yamamoto, T.; Takada, N.; Nishio, S.; Saito, T.; Iketani, H. A Segmental Duplication Encompassing S-Haplotype Triggers Pollen-Part Self-Compatibility in Japanese Pear (Pyrus Pyrifolia). Molecular Breeding 2014, 33, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Nishio, S.; Shirasawa, K.; Nishimura, R.; Takeuchi, Y.; Imai, A.; Mase, N.; Takada, N. A Self-Compatible Pear Mutant Derived from γ-Irradiated Pollen Carries an 11-Mb Duplication in Chromosome 17. Front Plant Sci 2024, 15, 1360185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Reid, W.; Hunt, K.L. Pecan Production in the Northern United States. Horttechnology 2000, 2, 298–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. da Silva Linge, C.; Ciacciulli, A.; Baccichet, I.; Chiozzotto, R.; Calastri, E.; Tagliabue, A.G.; Rossini, L.; Bassi, D.; Cirilli, M. A Novel Trait to Reduce the Mechanical Damage of Peach Fruits at Harvest: The First Genetic Dissection Study for Peduncle Length. Molecular Breeding 2025, 45, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barritt, B.H. The Necessity of Adopting New Apple Varieties to Meet Consumer Needs. Compact fruit tree 1999, 32, 38–43. [Google Scholar]
  52. Thompson, T.E.; Grauke, L.J.; Reid, W. “Lakota” Pecan. HortScience 2008, 43, 250–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Evans, K.M.; Barritt, B.H.; Konishi, B.S.; Brutcher, L.J.; Ross, C.F. ‘WA 38’ Apple. HortScience 2012, 47, 1177–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, H.; Ko, I.; Eaker, A.; Haney, S.; Khuu, N.; Ryan, K.; Appleby, A.B.; Hoffmann, B.; Landis, H.; Pierro, K.A.; et al. A Haplotype-Resolved, Chromosome-Scale Genome for Malus Domestica Borkh. ‘WA 38.’ G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics 2024, 14, jkae222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ru, S.; Main, D.; Evans, K.; Peace, C. Current Applications, Challenges, and Perspectives of Marker-Assisted Seedling Selection in Rosaceae Tree Fruit Breeding. Tree Genet Genomes 2015, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. De Mori, G.; Cipriani, G. Marker-Assisted Selection in Breeding for Fruit Trait Improvement: A Review. Int J Mol Sci 2023, 24, 8984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Collard, B.C.Y.; Mackill, D.J. Marker-Assisted Selection: An Approach for Precision Plant Breeding in the Twenty-First Century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2007, 363, 557–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Heffner, E.L.; Sorrells, M.E.; Jannink, J. Genomic Selection for Crop Improvement. Crop Sci 2009, 49, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Meuwissen, T.H.E.; Hayes, B.J.; Goddard, M. Prediction of Total Genetic Value Using Genome-Wide Dense Marker Maps. Genetics 2001, 157, 1819–1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, Y.; Mette, M.F.; Miedaner, T.; Gottwald, M.; Wilde, P.; Reif, J.C.; Zhao, Y. The Accuracy of Prediction of Genomic Selection in Elite Hybrid Rye Populations Surpasses the Accuracy of Marker-Assisted Selection and Is Equally Augmented by Multiple Field Evaluation Locations and Test Years. BMC Genomics 2014, 15, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cerrudo, D.; Cao, S.; Yuan, Y.; Martinez, C.; Suarez, E.A.; Babu, R.; Zhang, X.; Trachsel, S. Genomic Selection Outperforms Marker Assisted Selection for Grain Yield and Physiological Traits in a Maize Doubled Haploid Population across Water Treatments. Front Plant Sci 2018, 9, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Degen, B.; Müller, N.A. A Simulation Study Comparing Advanced Marker-Assisted Selection with Genomic Selection in Tree Breeding Programs. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics 2023, 13, jkad164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Boyle, E.A.; Li, Y.I.; Pritchard, J.K. An Expanded View of Complex Traits: From Polygenic to Omnigenic. Cell 2017, 169, 1177–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mathieson, I. The Omnigenic Model and Polygenic Prediction of Complex Traits. The American Journal of Human Genetics 2021, 108, 1558–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Merrick, L.F.; Burke, A.B.; Chen, X.; Carter, A.H. Breeding With Major and Minor Genes: Genomic Selection for Quantitative Disease Resistance. Front Plant Sci 2021, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pilet-Nayel, M.L.; Moury, B.; Caffier, V.; Montarry, J.; Kerlan, M.C.; Fournet, S.; Durel, C.E.; Delourme, R. Quantitative Resistance to Plant Pathogens in Pyramiding Strategies for Durable Crop Protection. Front Plant Sci 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Clair, D. Quantitative Disease Resistance and Quantitative Resistance Loci in Breeding. Annu Rev Phytopathol 2009, 48, 247–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Reid, M.; Buisson, D. Factors Influencing Adoption of New Apple and Pear Varieties in Europe and the UK. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 2001, 29, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ullah, A.; Khan, D.; Zheng, S.; Ali, U. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Improved Cultivars: A Case of Peach Farmers in Pakistan. Ciência Rural 2018, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gallardo, R.K.; Galinato, S.P. 2019 Cost Estimates of Establishing, Producing, and Packing Honeycrisp Apples in Washington; Washington State University Extension: Pullman, Washington, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  71. Geffroy, O.; Cheriet, F.; Chervin, C.; Hannin, H.; Olivier-Salvagnac, V.; Samson, A.; Vanden Heuvel, J. Opportunities and Challenges in the Adoption of New Grape Varieties by Producers: A Case Study from the Northeastern United. In Proceedings of the OIV 2024; International Viticulture and Enology Society, November 18 2024. [Google Scholar]
  72. Northwest Horticultural Council Pacific Northwest Pears Pear Fact Sheet Available online:. Available online: https://nwhort.org/industry-facts/pear-fact-sheet/ (accessed on 22 September 2025).
  73. Alan Bjerga Gala Outpaces Red Delicious to Become Most Popular Apple. The Seattle Times 2018.
  74. Zakari, S.; Manda, J.; Germaine, I.; Moussa, B.; Abdoulaye, T. Evaluating the Impact of Improved Crop Varieties in the Sahelian Farming Systems of Niger. J Agric Food Res 2023, 14, 100897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ho, S.-T.; Gonzalez Nieto, L.; Rickard, B.J.; Reig, G.; Lordan, J.; Lawrence, B.T.; Fazio, G.; Hoying, S.A.; Fargione, M.J.; Sazo, M.M.; et al. Effects of Cultivar, Planting Density and Rootstock on Long-Term Economic Performance of Apple Orchards in the Northeastern U.S. Sci Hortic 2024, 332, 113194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Baldos, U.L.C.; Cisneros-Pineda, A.; Fuglie, K.O.; Hertel, T.W. Adoption of Improved Crop Varieties Limited Biodiversity Losses, Terrestrial Carbon Emissions, and Cropland Expansion in the Tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2025, 122, e2404839122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Coupel-Ledru, A.; Pallas, B.; Delalande, M.; Boudon, F.; Carrié, E.; Martinez, S.; Regnard, J.-L.; Costes, E. Multi-Scale High-Throughput Phenotyping of Apple Architectural and Functional Traits in Orchard Reveals Genotypic Variability under Contrasted Watering Regimes. Hortic Res 2019, 6, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mir, R.R.; Reynolds, M.; Pinto, F.; Khan, M.A.; Bhat, M.A. High-Throughput Phenotyping for Crop Improvement in the Genomics Era. Plant Science 2019, 282, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sun, C.; Hu, H.; Cheng, Y.; Yang, X.; Qiao, Q.; Wang, C.; Zhang, L.; Chen, D.; Zhao, S.; Dong, Z.; et al. Genomics-Assisted Breeding: The next-Generation Wheat Breeding Era. Plant Breeding 2023, 142, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bado, S.; Yamba, N.G.G.; Sesay, J. V.; Laimer, M.; Forster, B.P. Plant Mutation Breeding for the Improvement of Vegetatively Propagated Crops: Successes and Challenges. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2017, 12, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Taheri, S.; Abdullah, T.; Jain, S.; Sahebi, M.; Azizi, P. TILLING, High-Resolution Melting (HRM), and next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Techniques in Plant Mutation Breeding. Molecular Breeding 2017, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kosugi, S.; Terao, C. Comparative Evaluation of SNVs, Indels, and Structural Variations Detected with Short- and Long-Read Sequencing Data. Hum Genome Var 2024, 11, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Guan, J.; Xu, Y.; Yu, Y.; Fu, J.; Ren, F.; Guo, J.; Zhao, J.; Jiang, Q.; Wei, J.; Xie, H. Genome Structure Variation Analyses of Peach Reveal Population Dynamics and a 1.67 Mb Causal Inversion for Fruit Shape. Genome Biol 2021, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ruigrok, M.; Xue, B.; Catanach, A.; Zhang, M.; Jesson, L.; Davy, M.; Wellenreuther, M. The Relative Power of Structural Genomic Variation versus SNPs in Explaining the Quantitative Trait Growth in the Marine Teleost Chrysophrys Auratus. Genes (Basel) 2022, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Jia, H.; Wang, N. Targeted Genome Editing of Sweet Orange Using Cas9/SgRNA. PLoS One 2014, 9, e93806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tsanova, T.; Stefanova, L.; Topalova, L.; Atanasov, A.; Pantchev, I. DNA-Free Gene Editing in Plants: A Brief Overview. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 2021, 35, 131–138. [Google Scholar]
  87. Martín-Valmaseda, M.; Devin, S.R.; Ortuño-Hernández, G.; Pérez-Caselles, C.; Mahdavi, S.M.E.; Bujdoso, G.; Salazar, J.A.; Martínez-Gómez, P.; Alburquerque, N. CRISPR/Cas as a Genome-Editing Technique in Fruit Tree Breeding. Int J Mol Sci 2023, 24, 16656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Weiss, T.; Kamalu, M.; Shi, H.; Li, Z.; Amerasekera, J.; Zhong, Z.; Adler, B.A.; Song, M.M.; Vohra, K.; Wirnowski, G. Viral Delivery of an RNA-Guided Genome Editor for Transgene-Free Germline Editing in Arabidopsis. Nat Plants 2025, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Vora, Z.; Pandya, J.; Sangh, C.; Vaikuntapu, P.R. The Evolving Landscape of Global Regulations on Genome-Edited Crops. J Plant Biochem Biotechnol 2023, 32, 831–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Duarte Sagawa, C.H.; Assis, R. de A.B.; Zaini, P.A. Chapter 8 - Regulatory Framework of CRISPR-Edited Crops in the United States. In Global Regulatory Outlook for CRISPRized Plants; Abd-Elsalam, K.A., Ahmad, A., Eds.; Academic Press, 2024; pp. 167–195 ISBN 978-0-443-18444-4.
  91. Erik Stokstad European Parliament Votes to Ease Regulation of Gene-Edited Crops. Science (1979) 2024.
  92. Penna, S.; Jain, S.M. Fruit Crop Improvement with Genome Editing, in Vitro and Transgenic Approaches. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yuan, Z.; Li, B.; Zhao, Y. Advances in Developmental Biology in Tree Fruit and Nut Crops. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bradnam, K.R.; Fass, J.N.; Alexandrov, A.; Baranay, P.; Bechner, M.; Birol, I.; Boisvert, S.; Chapman, J.A.; Chapuis, G.; Chikhi, R. Assemblathon 2: Evaluating de Novo Methods of Genome Assembly in Three Vertebrate Species. Gigascience 2013, 2, 2047–217X. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Thrash, A.; Hoffmann, F.; Perkins, A. Toward a More Holistic Method of Genome Assembly Assessment. BMC Bioinformatics 2020, 21, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wang, P.; Wang, F. A Proposed Metric Set for Evaluation of Genome Assembly Quality. Trends in Genetics 2023, 39, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Ekblom, R.; Wolf, J.B.W. A Field Guide to Whole-Genome Sequencing, Assembly and Annotation. Evol Appl 2014, 7, 1026–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wu, B.; Yu, Q.; Deng, Z.; Duan, Y.; Luo, F.; Gmitter Jr, F. A Chromosome-Level Phased Genome Enabling Allele-Level Studies in Sweet Orange: A Case Study on Citrus Huanglongbing Tolerance. Hortic Res 2023, 10, uhac247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Leggett, R.M.; MacLean, D. Reference-Free SNP Detection: Dealing with the Data Deluge. BMC Genomics 2014, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Uricaru, R.; Rizk, G.; Lacroix, V.; Quillery, E.; Plantard, O.; Chikhi, R.; Lemaitre, C.; Peterlongo, P. Reference-Free Detection of Isolated SNPs. Nucleic Acids Res 2015, 43, e11–e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Guo, L.; Gao, Z.; Qian, Q. Application of Resequencing to Rice Genomics, Functional Genomics and Evolutionary Analysis. Rice 2014, 7, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kumawat, S.; Raturi, G.; Dhiman, P.; Sudhakarn, S.; Rajora, N.; Thakral, V.; Yadav, H.; Padalkar, G.; Sharma, Y.; Rachappanavar, V. Opportunity and Challenges for Whole-genome Resequencing-based Genotyping in Plants. Genotyping by sequencing for crop improvement 2022, 38–51. [Google Scholar]
  103. Song, B.; Ning, W.; Wei, D.; Jiang, M.; Zhu, K.; Wang, X.; Edwards, D.; Odeny, D.A.; Cheng, S. Plant Genome Resequencing and Population Genomics: Current Status and Future Prospects. Mol Plant 2023, 16, 1252–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Silva, G.G.Z.; Dutilh, B.E.; Matthews, T.D.; Elkins, K.; Schmieder, R.; Dinsdale, E.A.; Edwards, R.A. Combining de Novo and Reference-Guided Assembly with Scaffold_builder. Source Code Biol Med 2013, 8, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Hach, F.; Numanagic, I.; Sahinalp, S.C. DeeZ: Reference-Based Compression by Local Assembly. Nat Methods 2014, 11, 1082–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Scheunert, A.; Dorfner, M.; Lingl, T.; Oberprieler, C. Can We Use It? On the Utility of de Novo and Reference-Based Assembly of Nanopore Data for Plant Plastome Sequencing. PLoS One 2020, 15, e0226234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Degner, J.F.; Marioni, J.C.; Pai, A.A.; Pickrell, J.K.; Nkadori, E.; Gilad, Y.; Pritchard, J.K. Effect of Read-Mapping Biases on Detecting Allele-Specific Expression from RNA-Sequencing Data. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 3207–3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Brandt, D.Y.C.; Aguiar, V.R.C.; Bitarello, B.D.; Nunes, K.; Goudet, J.; Meyer, D. Mapping Bias Overestimates Reference Allele Frequencies at the HLA Genes in the 1000 Genomes Project Phase I Data. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics 2015, 5, 931–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chen, N.-C.; Solomon, B.; Mun, T.; Iyer, S.; Langmead, B. Reference Flow: Reducing Reference Bias Using Multiple Population Genomes. Genome Biol 2021, 22, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. The Arabidopsis Genome Initiative Analysis of the Genome Sequence of the Flowering Plant Arabidopsis Thaliana. Nature 2000, 408, 796–815. [CrossRef]
  111. Ming, R.; Hou, S.; Feng, Y.; Yu, Q.; Dionne-Laporte, A.; Saw, J.H.; Senin, P.; Wang, W.; Ly, B. V.; Lewis, K.L.T.; et al. The Draft Genome of the Transgenic Tropical Fruit Tree Papaya (Carica Papaya Linnaeus). Nature 2008, 452, 991–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Wetterstrand, K. DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP).
  113. Velasco, R.; Zharkikh, A.; Affourtit, J.; Dhingra, A.; Cestaro, A.; Kalyanaraman, A.; Fontana, P.; Bhatnagar, S.K.; Troggio, M.; Pruss, D.; et al. The Genome of the Domesticated Apple (Malus × Domestica Borkh.). Nat Genet 2010, 42, 833–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ahmad, R.; Parfitt, D.E.; Fass, J.; Ogundiwin, E.; Dhingra, A.; Gradziel, T.M.; Lin, D.; Joshi, N.A.; Martinez-Garcia, P.J.; Crisosto, C.H. Whole Genome Sequencing of Peach (Prunus Persica L.) for SNP Identification and Selection. BMC Genomics 2011, 12, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Denoeud, F.; Carretero-Paulet, L.; Dereeper, A.; Droc, G.; Guyot, R.; Pietrella, M.; Zheng, C.; Alberti, A.; Anthony, F.; Aprea, G. The Coffee Genome Provides Insight into the Convergent Evolution of Caffeine Biosynthesis. Science (1979) 2014, 345, 1181–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Huang, Y.; Xiao, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, R.; Wang, Z.; Huang, C.; Huang, R.; Luan, Y.; Fan, T.; Wang, J. The Genomes of Pecan and Chinese Hickory Provide Insights into Carya Evolution and Nut Nutrition. Gigascience 2019, 8, giz036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Xing, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Nie, X.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Li, H.; Fang, K.; Wang, G.; Huang, H. Hybrid de Novo Genome Assembly of Chinese Chestnut (Castanea Mollissima). Gigascience 2019, 8, giz112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Thakur, S.; Yadav, I.S.; Jindal, M.; Sharma, P.K.; Dhillon, G.S.; Boora, R.S.; Arora, N.K.; Gill, M.I.S.; Chhuneja, P.; Mittal, A. Development of Genome-Wide Functional Markers Using Draft Genome Assembly of Guava (Psidium Guajava L.) Cv. Allahabad Safeda to Expedite Molecular Breeding. Front Plant Sci 2021, 12, 708332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Chagné, D.; Crowhurst, R.N.; Pindo, M.; Thrimawithana, A.; Deng, C.; Ireland, H.; Fiers, M.; Dzierzon, H.; Cestaro, A.; Fontana, P. The Draft Genome Sequence of European Pear (Pyrus Communis L.‘Bartlett’). PLoS One 2014, 9, e92644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Argout, X.; Salse, J.; Aury, J.-M.; Guiltinan, M.J.; Droc, G.; Gouzy, J.; Allegre, M.; Chaparro, C.; Legavre, T.; Maximova, S.N. The Genome of Theobroma Cacao. Nat Genet 2011, 43, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Verde, I.; Abbott, A.G.; Scalabrin, S.; Jung, S.; Shu, S.; Marroni, F.; Zhebentyayeva, T.; Dettori, M.T.; Grimwood, J.; Cattonaro, F.; et al. The High-Quality Draft Genome of Peach (Prunus Persica) Identifies Unique Patterns of Genetic Diversity, Domestication and Genome Evolution. Nat Genet 2013, 45, 487–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Xu, Q.; Chen, L.-L.; Ruan, X.; Chen, D.; Zhu, A.; Chen, C.; Bertrand, D.; Jiao, W.-B.; Hao, B.-H.; Lyon, M.P. The Draft Genome of Sweet Orange (Citrus Sinensis). Nat Genet 2013, 45, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Wu, J.; Wang, Z.; Shi, Z.; Zhang, S.; Ming, R.; Zhu, S.; Khan, M.A.; Tao, S.; Korban, S.S.; Wang, H. The Genome of the Pear (Pyrus Bretschneideri Rehd.). Genome Res 2013, 23, 396–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Cruz, F.; Julca, I.; Gómez-Garrido, J.; Loska, D.; Marcet-Houben, M.; Cano, E.; Galán, B.; Frias, L.; Ribeca, P.; Derdak, S. Genome Sequence of the Olive Tree, Olea Europaea. Gigascience 2016, 5, s13742–016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Nock, C.J.; Baten, A.; Barkla, B.J.; Furtado, A.; Henry, R.J.; King, G.J. Genome and Transcriptome Sequencing Characterises the Gene Space of Macadamia Integrifolia (Proteaceae). BMC Genomics 2016, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Martínez-García, P.J.; Crepeau, M.W.; Puiu, D.; Gonzalez-Ibeas, D.; Whalen, J.; Stevens, K.A.; Paul, R.; Butterfield, T.S.; Britton, M.T.; Reagan, R.L. The Walnut (Juglans Regia) Genome Sequence Reveals Diversity in Genes Coding for the Biosynthesis of Non-structural Polyphenols. The plant journal 2016, 87, 507–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Mori, K.; Shirasawa, K.; Nogata, H.; Hirata, C.; Tashiro, K.; Habu, T.; Kim, S.; Himeno, S.; Kuhara, S.; Ikegami, H. Identification of RAN1 Orthologue Associated with Sex Determination through Whole Genome Sequencing Analysis in Fig (Ficus Carica L.). Sci Rep 2017, 7, 41124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Teh, B.T.; Lim, K.; Yong, C.H.; Ng, C.C.Y.; Rao, S.R.; Rajasegaran, V.; Lim, W.K.; Ong, C.K.; Chan, K.; Cheng, V.K.Y. The Draft Genome of Tropical Fruit Durian (Durio Zibethinus). Nat Genet 2017, 49, 1633–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zeng, L.; Tu, X.-L.; Dai, H.; Han, F.-M.; Lu, B.-S.; Wang, M.-S.; Nanaei, H.A.; Tajabadipour, A.; Mansouri, M.; Li, X.-L. Whole Genomes and Transcriptomes Reveal Adaptation and Domestication of Pistachio. Genome Biol 2019, 20, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Zhu, Q.; Xu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Guan, C.; Zhang, Q.; Huang, J.; Grierson, D.; Chen, K.; Gong, B.; Yin, X. The Persimmon (Diospyros Oleifera Cheng) Genome Provides New Insights into the Inheritance of Astringency and Ancestral Evolution. Hortic Res 2019, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Sahu, S.K.; Liu, M.; Yssel, A.; Kariba, R.; Muthemba, S.; Jiang, S.; Song, B.; Hendre, P.S.; Muchugi, A.; Jamnadass, R. Draft Genomes of Two Artocarpus Plants, Jackfruit (A. Heterophyllus) and Breadfruit (A. Altilis). Genes (Basel) 2019, 11, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Jiang, S.; An, H.; Xu, F.; Zhang, X. Chromosome-Level Genome Assembly and Annotation of the Loquat (Eriobotrya Japonica) Genome. Gigascience 2020, 9, giaa015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Soyturk, A.; Sen, F.; Uncu, A.T.; Celik, I.; Uncu, A.O. De Novo Assembly and Characterization of the First Draft Genome of Quince (Cydonia Oblonga Mill.). Sci Rep 2021, 11, 3818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Feng, C.; Feng, C.; Lin, X.; Liu, S.; Li, Y.; Kang, M. A Chromosome-Level Genome Assembly Provides Insights into Ascorbic Acid Accumulation and Fruit Softening in Guava (Psidium Guajava). Plant Biotechnol J 2021, 19, 717–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Li, Y.; Sun, P.; Lu, Z.; Chen, J.; Wang, Z.; Du, X.; Zheng, Z.; Wu, Y.; Hu, H.; Yang, J. The Corylus Mandshurica Genome Provides Insights into the Evolution of Betulaceae Genomes and Hazelnut Breeding. Hortic Res 2021, 8. [Google Scholar]
  136. Savadi, S.; Muralidhara, B.M.; Godwin, J.; Adiga, J.D.; Mohana, G.S.; Eradasappa, E.; Shamsudheen, M.; Karun, A. De Novo Assembly and Characterization of the Draft Genome of the Cashew (Anacardium Occidentale L.). Sci Rep 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Worley, K.C.; Richards, S.; Rogers, J. The Value of New Genome References. Exp Cell Res 2017, 358, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Chagné, D.; Crowhurst, R.N.; Troggio, M.; Davey, M.W.; Gilmore, B.; Lawley, C.; Vanderzande, S.; Hellens, R.P.; Kumar, S.; Cestaro, A. Genome-Wide SNP Detection, Validation, and Development of an 8K SNP Array for Apple. PLoS One 2012, 7, e31745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Bianco, L.; Cestaro, A.; Sargent, D.J.; Banchi, E.; Derdak, S.; Di Guardo, M.; Salvi, S.; Jansen, J.; Viola, R.; Gut, I.; et al. Development and Validation of a 20K Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) Whole Genome Genotyping Array for Apple (Malus × Domestica Borkh). PLoS One 2014, 9, e110377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Kunihisa, M.; Moriya, S.; Abe, K.; Okada, K.; Haji, T.; Hayashi, T.; Kawahara, Y.; Itoh, R.; Itoh, T.; Katayose, Y. Genomic Dissection of a ‘Fuji’ Apple Cultivar: Re-Sequencing, SNP Marker Development, Definition of Haplotypes, and QTL Detection. Breed Sci 2016, 66, 499–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Lee, H.S.; Kim, G.H.; Kwon, S. Il; Kim, J.H.; Kwon, Y.S.; Choi, C. Analysis of ‘Fuji’Apple Somatic Variants from next-Generation Sequencing. Genet. Mol. Res 2016, 15, 17–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. De Franceschi, P.; Bianco, L.; Cestaro, A.; Dondini, L.; Velasco, R. Data Mining for Apple S-RNase Alleles in Resequencing Datasets. In Proceedings of the II International Workshop on Floral Biology and S-Incompatibility in Fruit Species 1231; 2016; pp. 135–152. [Google Scholar]
  143. Larsen, B.; Ørgaard, M.; Toldam-Andersen, T.B.; Pedersen, C. A High-Throughput Method for Genotyping S-RNase Alleles in Apple. Molecular Breeding 2016, 36, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Kerschbamer, E. Identification of Selective Sweeps in Domesticated Apple (Malus × Domestica Borkh.), University of Padua: Padua, 2015.
  145. Kumar, S.; Garrick, D.J.; Bink, M.C.A.M.; Whitworth, C.; Chagné, D.; Volz, R.K. Novel Genomic Approaches Unravel Genetic Architecture of Complex Traits in Apple. BMC Genomics 2013, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Zhang, S.; Chen, W.; Xin, L.; Gao, Z.; Hou, Y.; Yu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Qu, S. Genomic Variants of Genes Associated with Three Horticultural Traits in Apple Revealed by Genome Re-Sequencing. Hortic Res 2014, 1, 14045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Marx, V. Method of the Year: Long-Read Sequencing. Nat Methods 2023, 20, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Jayakodi, M.; Shim, H.; Mascher, M. What Are We Learning from Plant Pangenomes? Annu Rev Plant Biol 2024, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Li, H.; Durbin, R. Genome Assembly in the Telomere-to-Telomere Era. Nat Rev Genet 2024, 25, 658–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Eid, J.; Fehr, A.; Gray, J.; Luong, K.; Lyle, J.; Otto, G.; Peluso, P.; Rank, D.; Baybayan, P.; Bettman, B. Real-Time DNA Sequencing from Single Polymerase Molecules. Science (1979) 2009, 323, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Travers, K.J.; Chin, C.-S.; Rank, D.R.; Eid, J.S.; Turner, S.W. A Flexible and Efficient Template Format for Circular Consensus Sequencing and SNP Detection. Nucleic Acids Res 2010, 38, e159–e159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Wenger, A.M.; Peluso, P.; Rowell, W.J.; Chang, P.-C.; Hall, R.J.; Concepcion, G.T.; Ebler, J.; Fungtammasan, A.; Kolesnikov, A.; Olson, N.D.; et al. Accurate Circular Consensus Long-Read Sequencing Improves Variant Detection and Assembly of a Human Genome. Nat Biotechnol 2019, 37, 1155–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Clarke, J.; Wu, H.-C.; Jayasinghe, L.; Patel, A.; Reid, S.; Bayley, H. Continuous Base Identification for Single-Molecule Nanopore DNA Sequencing. Nat Nanotechnol 2009, 4, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Xiao, T.; Zhou, W. The Third Generation Sequencing: The Advanced Approach to Genetic Diseases. Transl Pediatr 2020, 9, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Hu, T.; Chitnis, N.; Monos, D.; Dinh, A. Next-Generation Sequencing Technologies: An Overview. Hum Immunol 2021, 82, 801–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Korlach, J. Understanding Accuracy in SMRT Sequencing. Pacific Biosciences 2013, 2013, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  157. Weirather, J.L.; de Cesare, M.; Wang, Y.; Piazza, P.; Sebastiano, V.; Wang, X.-J.; Buck, D.; Au, K.F. Comprehensive Comparison of Pacific Biosciences and Oxford Nanopore Technologies and Their Applications to Transcriptome Analysis. F1000Res 2017, 6, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Bashir, A.; Klammer, A.A.; Robins, W.P.; Chin, C.-S.; Webster, D.; Paxinos, E.; Hsu, D.; Ashby, M.; Wang, S.; Peluso, P. A Hybrid Approach for the Automated Finishing of Bacterial Genomes. Nat Biotechnol 2012, 30, 701–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Koren, S.; Schatz, M.C.; Walenz, B.P.; Martin, J.; Howard, J.T.; Ganapathy, G.; Wang, Z.; Rasko, D.A.; McCombie, W.R.; Jarvis, E.D. Hybrid Error Correction and de Novo Assembly of Single-Molecule Sequencing Reads. Nat Biotechnol 2012, 30, 693–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Cheng, H.; Concepcion, G.T.; Feng, X.; Zhang, H.; Li, H. Haplotype-Resolved de Novo Assembly Using Phased Assembly Graphs with Hifiasm. Nat Methods 2021, 18, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Espinosa, E.; Bautista, R.; Fernandez, I.; Larrosa, R.; Zapata, E.L.; Plata, O. Comparing Assembly Strategies for Third-Generation Sequencing Technologies across Different Genomes. Genomics 2023, 115, 110700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Rautiainen, M.; Nurk, S.; Walenz, B.P.; Logsdon, G.A.; Porubsky, D.; Rhie, A.; Eichler, E.E.; Phillippy, A.M.; Koren, S. Telomere-to-Telomere Assembly of Diploid Chromosomes with Verkko. Nat Biotechnol 2023, 41, 1474–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Belton, J.-M.; McCord, R.P.; Gibcus, J.H.; Naumova, N.; Zhan, Y.; Dekker, J. Hi–C: A Comprehensive Technique to Capture the Conformation of Genomes. Methods 2012, 58, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Pal, K.; Forcato, M.; Ferrari, F. Hi-C Analysis: From Data Generation to Integration. Biophys Rev 2019, 11, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Koren, S.; Walenz, B.P.; Berlin, K.; Miller, J.R.; Bergman, N.H.; Phillippy, A.M. Canu: Scalable and Accurate Long-Read Assembly via Adaptive k-Mer Weighting and Repeat Separation. Genome Res 2017, 27, 722–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Amarasinghe, S.L.; Ritchie, M.E.; Gouil, Q. Long-Read-Tools. Org: An Interactive Catalogue of Analysis Methods for Long-Read Sequencing Data. Gigascience 2021, 10, giab003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Amarasinghe, S.L.; Su, S.; Dong, X.; Zappia, L.; Ritchie, M.E.; Gouil, Q. Opportunities and Challenges in Long-Read Sequencing Data Analysis. Genome Biol 2020, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Koren, S.; Bao, Z.; Guarracino, A.; Ou, S.; Goodwin, S.; Jenike, K.M.; Lucas, J.; McNulty, B.; Park, J.; Rautiainen, M. Gapless Assembly of Complete Human and Plant Chromosomes Using Only Nanopore Sequencing. Genome Res 2024. [CrossRef]
  169. Li, X.; Kui, L.; Zhang, J.; Xie, Y.; Wang, L.; Yan, Y.; Wang, N.; Xu, J.; Li, C.; Wang, W.; et al. Improved Hybrid de Novo Genome Assembly of Domesticated Apple (Malus x Domestica). Gigascience 2016, 5, s13742–016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Su, Y.; Yang, X.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Long, Q.; Cao, S.; Wang, X.; Liu, Z.; Huang, S.; Chen, Z.; et al. Phased Telomere-to-Telomere Reference Genome and Pangenome Reveal an Expansion of Resistance Genes during Apple Domestication. Plant Physiol 2024, 195, 2799–2814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. De Coster, W.; Van Broeckhoven, C. Newest Methods for Detecting Structural Variations. Trends Biotechnol 2019, 37, 973–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Tettelin, H.; Masignani, V.; Cieslewicz, M.J.; Donati, C.; Medini, D.; Ward, N.L.; Angiuoli, S. V; Crabtree, J.; Jones, A.L.; Durkin, A.S. Genome Analysis of Multiple Pathogenic Isolates of Streptococcus Agalactiae: Implications for the Microbial “Pan-Genome. ” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2005, 102, 13950–13955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Vernikos, G.; Medini, D.; Riley, D.R.; Tettelin, H. Ten Years of Pan-Genome Analyses. Curr Opin Microbiol 2015, 23, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Hu, H.; Wang, J.; Nie, S.; Zhao, J.; Batley, J.; Edwards, D. Plant Pangenomics, Current Practice and Future Direction. Agriculture Communications 2024, 2, 100039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Huang, Y.; He, J.; Xu, Y.; Zheng, W.; Wang, S.; Chen, P.; Zeng, B.; Yang, S.; Jiang, X.; Liu, Z.; et al. Pangenome Analysis Provides Insight into the Evolution of the Orange Subfamily and a Key Gene for Citric Acid Accumulation in Citrus Fruits. Nat Genet 2023, 55, 1964–1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Li, W.; Chu, C.; Zhang, T.; Sun, H.; Wang, S.; Liu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Li, H.; Li, Y.; Zhang, X. Pan-Genome Analysis Reveals the Evolution and Diversity of Malus. Nat Genet 2025, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Andreace, F.; Lechat, P.; Dufresne, Y.; Chikhi, R. Comparing Methods for Constructing and Representing Human Pangenome Graphs. Genome Biol 2023, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Li, H.; Feng, X.; Chu, C. The Design and Construction of Reference Pangenome Graphs with Minigraph. Genome Biol 2020, 21, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Hickey, G.; Monlong, J.; Ebler, J.; Novak, A.M.; Eizenga, J.M.; Gao, Y.; Marschall, T.; Li, H.; Paten, B. Pangenome Graph Construction from Genome Alignments with Minigraph-Cactus. Nat Biotechnol 2024, 42, 663–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Garrison, E.; Guarracino, A.; Heumos, S.; Villani, F.; Bao, Z.; Tattini, L.; Hagmann, J.; Vorbrugg, S.; Marco-Sola, S.; Kubica, C.; et al. Building Pangenome Graphs. Nat Methods 2024, 21, 2008–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Qin, P.; Lu, H.; Du, H.; Wang, H.; Chen, W.; Chen, Z.; He, Q.; Ou, S.; Zhang, H.; Li, X.; et al. Pan-Genome Analysis of 33 Genetically Diverse Rice Accessions Reveals Hidden Genomic Variations. Cell 2021, 184, 3542–3558.e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Miga, K.H.; Wang, T. The Need for a Human Pangenome Reference Sequence. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2021, 22, 81–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Groza, C.; Schwendinger-Schreck, C.; Cheung, W.A.; Farrow, E.G.; Thiffault, I.; Lake, J.; Rizzo, W.B.; Evrony, G.; Curran, T.; Bourque, G.; et al. Pangenome Graphs Improve the Analysis of Structural Variants in Rare Genetic Diseases. Nat Commun 2024, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Zhou, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Bao, Z.; Li, H.; Lyu, Y.; Zan, Y.; Wu, Y.; Cheng, L.; Fang, Y.; Wu, K.; et al. Graph Pangenome Captures Missing Heritability and Empowers Tomato Breeding. Nature 2022, 606, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Du, Z.Z.; He, J.B.; Jiao, W.B. A Comprehensive Benchmark of Graph-Based Genetic Variant Genotyping Algorithms on Plant Genomes for Creating an Accurate Ensemble Pipeline. Genome Biol 2024, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Chapman, M.A.; He, Y.; Zhou, M. Beyond a Reference Genome: Pangenomes and Population Genomics of Underutilized and Orphan Crops for Future Food and Nutrition Security. New Phytologist 2022, 234, 1583–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Petereit, J.; Bayer, P.E.; Thomas, W.J.W.; Tay Fernandez, C.G.; Amas, J.; Zhang, Y.; Batley, J.; Edwards, D. Pangenomics and Crop Genome Adaptation in a Changing Climate. Plants 2022, 11, 1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. MacNish, T.R.; Danilevicz, M.F.; Bayer, P.E.; Bestry, M.S.; Edwards, D. Application of Machine Learning and Genomics for Orphan Crop Improvement. Nat Commun 2025, 16, 982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Tay Fernandez, C.G.; Nestor, B.J.; Danilevicz, M.F.; Marsh, J.I.; Petereit, J.; Bayer, P.E.; Batley, J.; Edwards, D. Expanding Gene-Editing Potential in Crop Improvement with Pangenomes. Int J Mol Sci 2022, 23, 2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Chen, S.; Wang, P.; Kong, W.; Chai, K.; Zhang, S.; Yu, J.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, M.; Lei, W.; Chen, X. Gene Mining and Genomics-Assisted Breeding Empowered by the Pangenome of Tea Plant Camellia Sinensis. Nat Plants 2023, 9, 1986–1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Yoshikawa, T.; Sato, Y. Usage of Wild Oryza Germplasms for Breeding in Pan-Genomics Era. Breed Sci 2025, 75, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Chen, G.; Shi, T.; Shi, L. Characterizing and Annotating the Genome Using RNA-Seq Data. Sci China Life Sci 2017, 60, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Kukurba, K.R.; Montgomery, S.B. RNA Sequencing and Analysis. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2015, 2015, pdb–top084970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Jaramillo Oquendo, C.; Wai, H.A.; Rich, W.I.; Bunyan, D.J.; Thomas, N.S.; Hunt, D.; Lord, J.; Douglas, A.G.L.; Baralle, D. Identification of Diagnostic Candidates in Mendelian Disorders Using an RNA Sequencing-Centric Approach. Genome Med 2024, 16, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Zhao, Y.; Wang, K.; Wang, W.; Yin, T.; Dong, W.; Xu, C. A High-Throughput SNP Discovery Strategy for RNA-Seq Data. BMC Genomics 2019, 20, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Williamson-Benavides, B.A.; Sharpe, R.M.; Nelson, G.; Bodah, E.T.; Porter, L.D.; Dhingra, A. Identification of Fusarium Solani f. Sp. Pisi (Fsp) Responsive Genes in Pisum Sativum. Front Genet 2020, 11, 950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Schena, M.; Shalon, D.; Davis, R.W.; Brown, P.O. Quantitative Monitoring of Gene Expression Patterns with a Complementary DNA Microarray. Science (1979) 1995, 270, 467–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Heid, C.A.; Stevens, J.; Livak, K.J.; Williams, P.M. Real Time Quantitative PCR. Genome Res 1996, 6, 986–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Weber, A.P.M.; Weber, K.L.; Carr, K.; Wilkerson, C.; Ohlrogge, J.B. Sampling the Arabidopsis Transcriptome with Massively Parallel Pyrosequencing. Plant Physiol 2007, 144, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Délano-Frier, J.P.; Avilés-Arnaut, H.; Casarrubias-Castillo, K.; Casique-Arroyo, G.; Castrillón-Arbeláez, P.A.; Herrera-Estrella, L.; Massange-Sánchez, J.; Martínez-Gallardo, N.A.; Parra-Cota, F.I.; Vargas-Ortiz, E.; et al. Transcriptomic Analysis of Grain Amaranth (Amaranthus Hypochondriacus) Using 454 Pyrosequencing: Comparison with A. Tuberculatus, Expression Profiling in Stems and in Response to Biotic and Abiotic Stress. BMC Genomics 2011, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Bazakos, C.; Manioudaki, M.E.; Sarropoulou, E.; Spano, T.; Kalaitzis, P. 454 Pyrosequencing of Olive (Olea Europaea L.) Transcriptome in Response to Salinity. PLoS One 2015, 10, e0143000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Schliesky, S.; Gowik, U.; Weber, A.P.M.; Bräutigam, A. RNA-Seq Assembly - Are We There Yet? Front Plant Sci 2012, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Raghavan, V.; Kraft, L.; Mesny, F.; Rigerte, L. A Simple Guide to de Novo Transcriptome Assembly and Annotation. Brief Bioinform 2022, 23, bbab563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Liu, G.; Li, W.; Zheng, P.; Xu, T.; Chen, L.; Liu, D.; Hussain, S.; Teng, Y. Transcriptomic Analysis of ‘Suli’ Pear (Pyrus Pyrifolia White Pear Group) Buds during the Dormancy by RNA-Seq. BMC Genomics 2012, 13, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Karimi, M.; Ghazanfari, F.; Fadaei, A.; Ahmadi, L.; Shiran, B.; Rabei, M.; Fallahi, H. The Small-RNA Profiles of Almond (Prunus Dulcis Mill.) Reproductive Tissues in Response to Cold Stress. PLoS One 2016, 11, e0156519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Orcheski, B.; Brown, S. High-Throughput Sequencing Reveals That Pale Green Lethal Disorder in Apple (Malus) Stimulates Stress Responses and Affects Senescence. Tree Genet Genomes 2017, 13, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Bielsa, B.; Hewitt, S.; Reyes-Chin-Wo, S.; Dhingra, A.; Rubio-Cabetas, M.J. Identification of Water Use Efficiency Related Genes in ‘Garnem’ Almond-Peach Rootstock Using Time-Course Transcriptome Analysis. PLoS One 2018, 13, e0205493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Ye, J.; Wang, G.; Tan, J.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, X.; Xu, F.; Cheng, S.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, W.; Liao, Y. Identification of Candidate Genes Involved in Anthocyanin Accumulation Using Illmuina-Based RNA-Seq in Peach Skin. Sci Hortic 2019, 250, 184–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Hewitt, S.L.; Hendrickson, C.A.; Dhingra, A. Evidence for the Involvement of Vernalization-Related Genes in the Regulation of Cold-Induced Ripening in ‘D’Anjou’ and ‘Bartlett’ Pear Fruit. Sci Rep 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Hewitt, S.; Kilian, B.; Koepke, T.; Abarca, J.; Whiting, M.; Dhingra, A. Transcriptome Analysis Reveals Potential Mechanisms for Ethylene-Inducible Pedicel–Fruit Abscission Zone Activation in Non-Climacteric Sweet Cherry (Prunus Avium l.). Horticulturae 2021, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Wang, G.; Gao, X.; Wang, X.; Liu, P.; Guan, S.L.; Qi, K.; Zhang, S.; Gu, C. Transcriptome Analysis Reveals Gene Associated with Fruit Size during Fruit Development in Pear. Sci Hortic 2022, 305, 111367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Oikonomopoulos, S.; Wang, Y.C.; Djambazian, H.; Badescu, D.; Ragoussis, J. Benchmarking of the Oxford Nanopore MinION Sequencing for Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of CDNA Populations. Sci Rep 2016, 6, 31602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Workman, R.E.; Tang, A.D.; Tang, P.S.; Jain, M.; Tyson, J.R.; Razaghi, R.; Zuzarte, P.C.; Gilpatrick, T.; Payne, A.; Quick, J. Nanopore Native RNA Sequencing of a Human Poly (A) Transcriptome. Nat Methods 2019, 16, 1297–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Pardo-Palacios, F.J.; Wang, D.; Reese, F.; Diekhans, M.; Carbonell-Sala, S.; Williams, B.; Loveland, J.E.; De María, M.; Adams, M.S.; Balderrama-Gutierrez, G.; et al. Systematic Assessment of Long-Read RNA-Seq Methods for Transcript Identification and Quantification. Nat Methods 2024, 21, 1349–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Athanasopoulou, K.; Boti, M.A.; Adamopoulos, P.G.; Skourou, P.C.; Scorilas, A. Third-Generation Sequencing: The Spearhead towards the Radical Transformation of Modern Genomics. Life 2021, 12, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Song, Z.; Yang, Q.; Dong, B.; Wang, S.; Xue, J.; Liu, N.; Zhou, X.; Li, N.; Dandekar, A.M.; Cheng, L.; et al. Nanopore RNA Direct Sequencing Identifies That M6A Modification Is Essential for Sorbitol-Controlled Resistance to Alternaria Alternata in Apple. Dev Cell 2025, 60, 1439–1453.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Hu, X.-L.; You, C.; Zhu, K.; Li, X.; Gong, J.; Ma, H.; Sun, X. Nanopore Long-Read RNAseq Reveals Transcriptional Variations in Citrus Species. Front Plant Sci 2023, 13, 1077797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Stark, R.; Grzelak, M.; Hadfield, J. RNA Sequencing: The Teenage Years. Nat Rev Genet 2019, 20, 631–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Hirsch, C.N.; Foerster, J.M.; Johnson, J.M.; Sekhon, R.S.; Muttoni, G.; Vaillancourt, B.; Peñagaricano, F.; Lindquist, E.; Pedraza, M.A.; Barry, K. Insights into the Maize Pan-Genome and Pan-Transcriptome. Plant Cell 2014, 26, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Sun, C.; Wang, R.; Li, J.; Li, X.; Song, B.; Edwards, D.; Wu, J. Pan-Transcriptome Analysis Provides Insights into Resistance and Fruit Quality Breeding of Pear (Pyrus Pyrifolia). J Integr Agric 2025, 24, 1813–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Watt, M.; Fiorani, F.; Usadel, B.; Rascher, U.; Muller, O.; Schurr, U. Phenotyping: New Windows into the Plant for Breeders. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2020, 71, 689–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Xu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Li, H.; Zheng, H.; Zhang, J.; Olsen, M.S.; Varshney, R.K.; Prasanna, B.M.; Qian, Q. Smart Breeding Driven by Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, and Integrated Genomic-Enviromic Prediction. Mol Plant 2022, 15, 1664–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Furbank, R.T.; Tester, M. Phenomics - Technologies to Relieve the Phenotyping Bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci 2011, 16, 635–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Jones, H.G. Application of Thermal Imaging and Infrared Sensing in Plant Physiology and Ecophysiology. In Advances in botanical research; Elsevier, 2004; Vol. 41, pp. 107–163 ISBN 0065-2296.
  225. Chaerle, L.; Leinonen, I.; Jones, H.G.; Van Der Straeten, D. Monitoring and Screening Plant Populations with Combined Thermal and Chlorophyll Fluorescence Imaging. J Exp Bot 2007, 58, 773–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Liew, O.W.; Chong, P.C.J.; Li, B.; Asundi, A.K. Signature Optical Cues: Emerging Technologies for Monitoring Plant Health. Sensors 2008, 8, 3205–3239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  227. Jones, H.G.; Serraj, R.; Loveys, B.R.; Xiong, L.; Wheaton, A.; Price, A.H. Thermal Infrared Imaging of Crop Canopies for the Remote Diagnosis and Quantification of Plant Responses to Water Stress in the Field. Functional Plant Biology 2009, 36, 978–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  228. Ibaraki, Y.; Murakami, J. Distribution of Chlorophyll Fluorescence Parameter Fv/Fm within Individual Plants under Various Stress Conditions. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  229. Hütt, C.; Bolten, A.; Hüging, H.; Bareth, G. UAV LiDAR Metrics for Monitoring Crop Height, Biomass and Nitrogen Uptake: A Case Study on a Winter Wheat Field Trial. PFG–Journal of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science 2023, 91, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Cristescu, S.M.; Mandon, J.; Arslanov, D.; De Pessemier, J.; Hermans, C.; Harren, F.J.M. Current Methods for Detecting Ethylene in Plants. Ann Bot 2013, 111, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Busch, F.A.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Amtmann, A.; Cavanagh, A.P.; Driever, S.M.; Ferguson, J.N.; Kromdijk, J.; Lawson, T.; Leakey, A.D.B.; Matthews, J.S.A. A Guide to Photosynthetic Gas Exchange Measurements: Fundamental Principles, Best Practice and Potential Pitfalls. Plant Cell Environ 2024, 47, 3344–3364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Zhang, C.; Kong, J.; Wu, D.; Guan, Z.; Ding, B.; Chen, F. Wearable Sensor: An Emerging Data Collection Tool for Plant Phenotyping. Plant Phenomics 2023, 5, 0051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Metzner, R.; Eggert, A.; van Dusschoten, D.; Pflugfelder, D.; Gerth, S.; Schurr, U.; Uhlmann, N.; Jahnke, S. Direct Comparison of MRI and X-Ray CT Technologies for 3D Imaging of Root Systems in Soil: Potential and Challenges for Root Trait Quantification. Plant Methods 2015, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Van Dusschoten, D.; Metzner, R.; Kochs, J.; Postma, J.A.; Pflugfelder, D.; Bühler, J.; Schurr, U.; Jahnke, S. Quantitative 3D Analysis of Plant Roots Growing in Soil Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Plant Physiol 2016, 170, 1176–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Zaman-Allah, M.; Vergara, O.; Araus, J.L.; Tarekegne, A.; Magorokosho, C.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Hornero, A.; Albà, A.H.; Das, B.; Craufurd, P. Unmanned Aerial Platform-Based Multi-Spectral Imaging for Field Phenotyping of Maize. Plant Methods 2015, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Madec, S.; Baret, F.; De Solan, B.; Thomas, S.; Dutartre, D.; Jezequel, S.; Hemmerlé, M.; Colombeau, G.; Comar, A. High-Throughput Phenotyping of Plant Height: Comparing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Ground LiDAR Estimates. Front Plant Sci 2017, 8, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. D’Odorico, P.; Besik, A.; Wong, C.Y.S.; Isabel, N.; Ensminger, I. High-Throughput Drone-Based Remote Sensing Reliably Tracks Phenology in Thousands of Conifer Seedlings. New Phytologist 2020, 226, 1667–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. DeBruin, J.; Aref, T.; Tirado Tolosa, S.; Hensley, R.; Underwood, H.; McGuire, M.; Soman, C.; Nystrom, G.; Parkinson, E.; Li, C.; et al. Breaking the Field Phenotyping Bottleneck in Maize with Autonomous Robots. Commun Biol 2025, 8, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  239. Basu, P.S.; Srivastava, M.; Singh, P.; Porwal, P.; Kant, R.; Singh, J. High-Precision Phenotyping Under Controlled Versus Natural Environments. In Phenomics in Crop Plants: Trends, Options and Limitations; Kumar, J., Pratap, A., Kumar, S., Eds.; Springer India: New Delhi, 2015; ISBN 978-81-322-2226-2. [Google Scholar]
  240. Langstroff, A.; Heuermann, M.C.; Stahl, A.; Junker, A. Opportunities and Limits of Controlled-Environment Plant Phenotyping for Climate Response Traits. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 2022, 135, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  241. Czedik-Eysenberg, A.; Seitner, S.; Güldener, U.; Koemeda, S.; Jez, J.; Colombini, M.; Djamei, A. The ‘PhenoBox’, a Flexible, Automated, Open-Source Plant Phenotyping Solution. New Phytologist 2018, 219, 808–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  242. Kim, J.Y.; Abdel-Haleem, H.; Luo, Z.; Szczepanek, A. Open-Source Electronics for Plant Phenotyping and Irrigation in Controlled Environment. Smart Agricultural Technology 2023, 3, 100093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Hassan, M.A.; Chang, C.Y.-Y. PhenoGazer: A High-Throughput Phenotyping System to Track Plant Stress Responses Using Hyperspectral Reflectance, Nighttime Chlorophyll Fluorescence and RGB Imaging in Controlled Environments. Plant Phenomics 2025, 7, 100047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Montoliu, A.; López-Climent, M.F.; Arbona, V.; Pérez-Clemente, R.M.; Gómez-Cadenas, A. A Novel in Vitro Tissue Culture Approach to Study Salt Stress Responses in Citrus. Plant Growth Regul 2009, 59, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Pérez-Jiménez, M.; Pérez-Tornero, O. In Vitro Plant Evaluation Trial: Reliability Test of Salinity Assays in Citrus Plants. Plants 2020, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Hammerschlag, F.A.; Ognjanov, V. Somaclonal Variation in Peach: Screening for Resistance to Xanthomonas Campestris Pv. In Pruni and Pseudomonas Syringae Pv. Syringae. In Proceedings of the I International Symposium on In Vitro Culture and Horticultural Breeding 280; 1989; pp. 403–408. [Google Scholar]
  247. Ochatt, S.J.; Power, J.B. Selection for Salt and Drought Tolerance in Protoplast- and Explant-Derived Tissue Cultures of Colt Cherry (Prunus Avium × Pseudocerasus). Tree Physiol 1989, 5, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. da Câmara Machado, M.L.; da Câmara Machado, A.; Hanzer, V.; Weiss, H.; Regner, F.; Steinkellner, H.; Mattanovich, D.; Plail, R.; Knapp, E.; Kalthoff, B.; et al. Regeneration of Transgenic Plants of Prunus Armeniaca Containing the Coat Protein Gene of Plum Pox Virus. Plant Cell Rep 1992, 11, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Norelli, J.L.; Brandl, M.T. Survival and Growth of Erwinia Amylovora on Apple Leaves. In Proceedings of the X International Workshop on Fire Blight 704; 2004; pp. 127–130. [Google Scholar]
  250. Yao, J.-L.; Cohen, D.; Atkinson, R.; Richardson, K.; Morris, B. Regeneration of Transgenic Plants from the Commercial Apple Cultivar Royal Gala. Plant Cell Rep 1995, 14, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  251. Ghadirzadeh-Khorzoghi, E.; Jahanbakhshian-Davaran, Z.; Seyedi, S.M. Direct Somatic Embryogenesis of Drought Resistance Pistachio (Pistacia Vera L.) and Expression Analysis of Somatic Embryogenesis-Related Genes. South African Journal of Botany 2019, 121, 558–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Non-exhaustive list of common goals for genetic improvement of tree fruit and nut crops.
Table 1. Non-exhaustive list of common goals for genetic improvement of tree fruit and nut crops.
Trait Goal Example Reference
Precocity Developing trees that bear fruit in fewer years, and developing rootstocks that encourage early fruit bearing Hybridization between Juglans regia and Juglans hindsii resulted in a highly precocious walnut cultivar that enters full nut production within 6 years [31]
Salinity Stress Tolerance Developing trees that can grow on saline soil without loss of yield Citrus rootstocks, which showed enhanced production of proline and phenolic compounds, were capable of surviving on 100mM NaCl soil [32]
Rootstock Vigor Control Developing rootstocks that limit the vegetative growth of grafted scions Vigor-controlling Malus domestica rootstocks allow for planting densities over 4000 trees/ha [33]
Dwarfing Developing trees with a shorter stature to improve tree manageability and decrease unnecessary vegetative growth Pyrus bretschneideri with a knockout mutation of PAT14 displayed dwarfism with shorter, thinner stems and elevated abscisic acid levels [34]
Disease and Pest Resistance Developing trees that require fewer pesticide applications, naturally resist existing and emerging diseases Carica papaya expressing transgenic Papaya Ring Spot Virus (PRSV) coat proteins is resistant to PRSV, allowing for the recovery of the Hawaii papaya industry [35]
Parthenocarpy Developing trees that can produce fruit of consistent yield and quality, even in the absence of pollination; also valuable to produce seedless fruits Tetraploid Citrus lines for the breeding of seedless triploid orange cultivars have been achieved via protoplast fusion [36]
Heat and Drought Tolerance Developing trees that can maintain yield through exceptionally high temperatures and maintain yield through exceptionally dry periods in rainfed systems Screening for drought tolerance is essential in Prunus dulcis; bitter cultivars show superior qualities as drought-tolerant rootstocks [37]
Cold Hardiness Developing trees that can handle exceptionally low temperatures, and developing trees that do not break dormancy prematurely Whole genome sequencing of the new cold-hardy Malus domestica cv. ‘Hanfu’ showed alterations in oligosaccharide metabolism and galactinol synthesis, which may contribute to resilience [38]
Self-Thinning/Decreased Fruit Set Developing trees that will drop immature fruit in excess of their ability to develop properly Malus domestica cv. ‘WA 38’ is self-thinning, with most fruitlets abscising following a profuse bloom [39]
Regular Bearing Developing trees, which produce a consistent quantity of fruit year to year Most recommended Carya illinoinensis cultivars have lower than average alternate bearing indices; selection of new cultivars based on alternate bearing index is recommended [25]
Fruit Color Developing trees that reliably produce fruit with colors that appeal to consumer expectations Prunus avium coloration is essential for the marketability of new cultivars; in response, a PCR-based assay has been developed, which can predict fruit coloration [40]
Fruit Texture Developing trees that bear fruit with an enjoyable eating texture, soft in some fruit and crisp in others In the breeding of Pyrus pyrifolia, flesh firmness under 23 newtons was used as a selection criterion for new cultivars [41]
Fruit Flavor Developing fruit which have an appealing balance of sugars, acids, and secondary metabolites which contribute to aroma and other elements of taste In Malus domestica, genes responsible for volatile compounds that produce apple aroma have been identified in multiple cultivars, aiding the development of new aroma profiles [42,43]
Healthful Compounds Developing trees with fruit that produce metabolites known to have positive effects on human health, such as unsaturated fats, antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals Self-pollination of the Tunisian Olea europea cultivar ‘Chemlali Sfax’ resulted in a cultivar with a greater proportion of unsaturated fats relative to saturated fats [44]
Fruit Storage Developing trees with fruit that can be stored long-term, processed, and transported long distances without loss in quality Reduction of fruit browning in Malus domestica through the silencing of Polyphenol Oxidase via transgenic RNA silencing [45]
Fruit Size Developing trees that produce large fruits and nuts A decentralized program for the breeding of Castanea in the United States makes nuts over 10 grams an objective for new selections [46]
Self-Compatibility Developing trees that can pollinate/fertilize themselves, reducing the risk of poor fruit set Self-compatible Pyrus pyrifolia resulting from a gamma irradiation-induced 17Mb duplication including S-RNAse genes [47,48]
Early Ripening Developing trees which ripen early in the season to expand potential growing range and decreasing the risk of crop damage Selection of early ripening Carya illinoinensis cultivars increases commercial viability in cooler growing regions, expanding the range of pecan cultivation [49]
Mechanical Harvestability Developing trees that are more suitable for automated harvesting mechanisms Candidate genes with functional annotations including cell expansion and hormone response were found to be associated with peduncle length in Prunus persica, with greater length being associated with lower mechanical damage during harvest [50]
Table 2. First genomic reference sequence for widely cultivated tree fruit and nut genera.
Table 2. First genomic reference sequence for widely cultivated tree fruit and nut genera.
Family Genus Species Year Sequencing Platform Reference
Caricaceae Carica papaya 2008 Sanger [111]
Rosaceae Malus domestica 2010 Illumina, 454 [113]
Malvaceae Theobroma cacao 2011 Illumina, 454 [120]
Rosaceae Prunus persica 2013 Sanger, Illumina [121]
Rutaceae Citrus sinensis 2013 Illumina [122]
Rosaceae Pyrus bretschneideri 2013 Illumina [123]
Rubiaceae Coffea canephora 2014 Sanger, 454 [115]
Oleaceae Olea europaea 2016 Illumina [124]
Proteaeceae Macadamia integrifolia 2016 Illumina [125]
Juglandaceae Juglans regia 2016 Illumina [126]
Moraceae Ficus carica 2017 Illumina [127]
Malvaceae Durio zibethinus 2017 Illumina, PacBio [128]
Juglandaceae Carya illinoinensis 2019 Illumina, PacBio [116]
Anacardiaceae Pistacia vera 2019 Illumina, PacBio [129]
Ebenaceae Diospyros oleifera 2019 Illumina, PacBio [130]
Fagaceae Castanea mollissima 2019 Illumina, 454 [117]
Moraceae Artocarpus heterophyllus 2019 Illumina [131]
Rosaceae Eriobotrya japonica 2020 Illumina, Nanopore [132]
Rosaceae Cydonia oblonga 2021 Illumina [133]
Myrtaceae Psidium guajava 2021 Illumina [134]
Betulaceae Corylus mandshurica 2021 Illumina, Nanopore [135]
Anacardiaceae Anacardium occidentale 2022 Illumina, Nanopore [136]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated