Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Chromosome-Level Genome Assembly of Solanum carolinense

Submitted:

10 July 2026

Posted:

10 July 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
(1) Background: Horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) is a noxious weed widely distributed across North America and increasingly invasive in other regions. Its strong environmental adaptability, complex defense strategies, and distinctive reproductive traits make it an important model for studying plant-herbivore coevolution. However, the absence of high-quality genomic resources has limited deeper investigation into its adaptive evolutionary mechanisms. (2) Methods: In this study we generated a chromosome-level reference genome assembly for S. carolinense using an integrated approach combining PacBio HiFi long-read sequencing, Illumina second-generation sequencing, and Hi-C chromosome-mapping; (3) The final genome assembly has a total length of 915.40 Mb, with a contig N50 of 51.06 Mb and a scaffold N50 of 73.17 Mb; 96.05% of the sequences were successfully mapped to 12 pseudo-chromosomes. The genome is characterized by a high proportion of repetitive sequences (73.64%) and substantial heterozygosity (1.13%), consistent with a highly repetitive and highly heterozygous genome. BUSCO analysis indicates a completeness of 94.7%. A total of 32,206 protein-coding genes were annotated, of which 97.95% received functional annotations; (4) Conclusions: This reference genome provides a valuable resource for advancing research on the adaptive evolution of Solanaceae weeds, supports the development of more effective management strategies for this troublesome species, and offers a technical reference for assembling other highly heterozygous weed genomes.
Keywords: 
;  ;  

1. Introduction

Solanum carolinense L. is a perennial herbaceous species in the Solanaceae family, native to the southeastern United States and widely recognized as a noxious weed [1]. It was first detected in Taizhou and Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China, in 2006 [2]. Currently, S. carolinense has spread throughout the United States, Canada, and at least 36 countries and regions across Oceania, Europe, and Asia [3,4]. As a troublesome weed in major food crops such as corn, potato, and peanut, as well as in vegetables and forage crops, S. carolinense also serves as a host for key pests, including the Colorado potato beetle and carmine spider mite, and for several Solanaceae-infecting viruses, thereby increasing pest and disease pressure in cropping systems [5]. In 2017, it was included in China’s Catalog of Imported Plant Quarantine Pests [6].
Beyond its agricultural impact, S. carolinense is also an important model for studying the plant-herbivore interactions [7]. It exhibits distinctive genetic traits, including a plastic self-incompatibility system [8], diverse stress resistance and defense mechanisms, and strong asexual reproductive capacity, all of which contribute to complex coevolutionary relationships with multiple herbivorous insects. Its defense strategies include both constitutive and inducible mechanisms: physical defenses such as non-glandular trichomes and prickles [9], and chemical defenses including polyphenols, glycoalkaloids, and trypsin inhibitors [10,11]. Its plastic self-incompatibility system [12], andromonoecious floral sex expression [13], and tolerance to inbreeding depression may influence the evolutionary trajectory of its mating system [12], providing flexibility in reproductive strategies.
S. carolinense shows remarkable ecological adaptability, thriving in diverse soil types including sandy and gravelly substrates, and reproducing through seeds, roots, and even small root fragments. Its extensive rhizome network can extend several meters and regenerate from minute segments [6,14], making management extremely difficult. Although it poses a significant threat to global food security, current control tactics remain inadequate, mostly relying on herbicide applications that could have negative side effects on crop seed set such as picloram alone in autumn to suppress root growth or combined with glyphosate to control fruiting plants [14]. Although prevention is regarded as critical and effective [6], manual removal before flowering and excavation of underground rhizomes are labor-intensive and insufficient measures due to the species’ strong vegetative regeneration. With many regions of China now suitable for its establishment [2,15], thorough studies on its genetic differentiation, allelopathy, and dispersal capacity are urgently needed.
Genome sequencing has become a core tool for elucidating plant genetic architecture, uncovering molecular mechanisms underlying key traits, and supporting crop improvement and sustainable agriculture [16]. In the genus Solanum, chloroplast genomes have been particularly informative. The chloroplast genome of Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav. is 155,049 bp in length and shows close affinity with species in section Melongena [17]. Species-specific SSR markers developed for S. elaeagnifolium provide valuable tools for assessing genetic diversity and tracing population origins in this species and its relatives [18]. Similarly, the chloroplast genome of Solanum dulcamara (155,580 bp) [19] exhibits a typical angiosperm quadripartite structure and low genetic polymorphism, with only weak geographical and ecological structuring among populations [20]. The chloroplast genome of S. carolinense, at 155,315 bp with a GC content of 37.6%; is highly conserved relative to congeners, particularly in coding regions [21]. However, no genetic characteristics associated with its invasiveness have yet been identified in the chloroplast genome.
While chloroplast genomes offer useful insights, whole-genome sequencing provides the complete nuclear sequence information required to investigate species evolution, gene function, regulatory networks and adaptive mechnisms [22,23].
Among Solanum weed species to date, only Solanum rostratum and Solanum torvum have undergone high-quality chromosome-level genome assembly. The final assembled genome of S. rostratum spans 869.69 Mb, with a BUSCO completeness score of 99.5% for pseudochromosomes [24]. The assembled genome of S. torvum is approximately 1.25 Gb in size, achieving a BUSCO completeness of 98% [25]. To date, only the chloroplast genome of S. carolinense has been assembled and characterized [21] with no nuclear genome assembly available. A high-quality chromosome-level nuclear genome would enable systematic exploration of the genetic basis of invasive adaptability, reproductive biology, herbicide target sites, non-target herbicide-resistance loci, and structural variants that may facilitate rapid evolution. Such resources are essential for deciphering the molecular mechanisms driving their invasiveness and for developing evidence-based management strategies.
This study employed a multi-platform sequencing approach to generate a high-quality chromosome-level reference genome for S. carolinense. We integrated Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) High-Fidelity (HiFi) long-read sequencing (renowned for long read lengths and high base accuracy), Illumina next-generation short-read sequencing (offering high throughput and cost effectiveness) and High-throughput/resolution chromosome conformation capture (Hi-C) (which facilitates chromosome-scale scaffolding and integration of 3D genomic architecture with multi-omics data) [26]. The resulting assembly was comprehensively annotated for protein-coding genes, non-coding RNAs, and repetitive elements. We also identified candidate genes associated with defense responses and reproduction. These genomic resources will establish a robust molecular foundation for future research on adaptive evolution, defense regulation, reproductive system evolution, and invasive dispersal mechanisms in S. carolinense.

2. Results

2.1. Sequencing Data Processing and Genome Characterization

Sequencing data for the S. carolinense genome assembly consisted of next-generation sequencing (NGS) short reads, and third generation (HiFi) sequencing. After quality control and filtering, a total of 396.96 Giga bases (Gb) of clean data were obtained (Table 1). K-mer analysis based on the NGS data estimated the genome size at approximately 842 Mb, with a heterozygosity rate of 1.13% and a repeat content of 49.64%. These results indicate that the S. carolinense genome is highly repetitive and with low heterozygosity. The K-mer distribution is shown in Figure 1.
Note: The abscissa represents the depth at kmer=19, and the ordinate represents the k-mer frequency at different depths multiplied by the corresponding depth.

2.2. Preliminary Genome Assembly Using HiFi Sequencing Data

A total of 99.89 Gb of high-quality HiFi reads were generated, with an average read length of 18,660.8 bp and an N50 of 18,384 bp. Genome assembly using hifiasm produced a draft genome of 915.39 Mb, consisting of 128 contigs with a contig N50 of 51.06 Mb (Table 2). To assess assembly accuracy, the NGS short reads were remapped, resulting in an alignment rate of 99.90% and a coverage of 98.45%, indicating excellent consistency between the assembled genome and the raw sequencing data.

2.3. Hi-C-Assisted Chromosome-Level Scaffolding and Quality Evaluation

Following Hi-C scaffolding and manual refinement, 879.26 Mb of contig sequences (96.05% of the assembled genome) were anchored to 12 pseudochromosomes. The final chromosome-level genome assembly of S. carolinense is 915.40 Mb in length, with a GC content of 35.61% and a Scaffold N50 of 73.17 Mb (Table 3), indicating high continuity and completeness of the assembly that meets the requirements for subsequent gene annotation and functional analyses. The chromosome-level assembly of the S. carolinense genome is visualized in a normalized Hi-C contact map (chromosome interval interaction plot) in Figure 2. The contact heatmap shows strong intra-chromosomal interaction signals along the diagonal and weak inter-chromosomal interactions, confirming the correct anchoring of scaffolds to individual chromosomes with minimal misjoins or chimeric assemblies.
Note: The color scale from light to dark red represents the log-transformed Hi-C interaction frequency, reflecting low to high interaction intensity. Twelve pseudochromosomes are designated as chr1 to chr12.
Genome completeness was evaluated with Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCOs) (v5.4.7) [27] in genome mode against the embryophyta_odb10 database, yielding a completeness value of 94.7% (Table 4), indicating excellent completeness of the assembly. A Circos plot integrating chromosome length, gene density, repeat sequence density, GC content, and sequence collinearity was constructed to provide an overview of the genomic characteristics (Figure 3).
Note: From outer to inner circles: gene density, repeat sequence density, GC content.

2.4. Genome Annotation and Quality Evaluation

2.4.1. Structural Annotation

A total of 674.12 Mb of repetitive sequences were identified in the S. carolinense genome, accounting for 73.64% of the assembly (Table 5).
Repeat sequence annotation was performed using a combined approach of “public database alignment + ab initio annotation”, with various types of non-coding RNAs identified in the genome, and their statistics are summarized in Table 6.
A total of 32,206 protein-coding genes were annotated and predicted in the S. carolinense genome, with an average length of 5,209 bp with a coding sequence (CDS) length of 1,149 bp, 4.78 exons per gene, an average exon length of 312 bp, and an average intron length of 982 bp (Table 7).

2.4.2. Functional Annotation

Of the predicted protein-coding genes, 97.95% were functionally annotated (Table 8). GO enrichment analysis (Figure 4) revealed that the annotated genes are involved in a wide range of biological processes, including phosphorylation, regulation of DNA transcription, and defense response. These genes are primarily localized in the cell membrane, nucleus, and cytoplasm, and exhibit molecular functions such as ATP binding, metal ion binding, and DNA binding. KEGG pathway analysis (Figure 5) revealed that the genes are predominantly associated with global metabolism, signal transduction, and environmental adaptation pathways. KOG classification (Figure 6) indicated a high proportion of genes involved in general function prediction, post-translational modification, protein turnover, molecular chaperones, and amino acid and carbohydrate metabolism. The abundance of post-translational modification and molecular chaperone genes highlights the importance of protein homeostasis in S. carolinense. BLAST searches against the NR database (Figure 7) showed that the top three species with the highest sequence similarity to S. carolinense genes were Solanum dulcamara (37.11%), Solanum tuberosum (20.12%), and Solanum verrucosum (10.01%). Among the top 10 hits, all species except Capsicum annuum belonged to the genus Solanum, confirming the close phylogenetic relationship of S. carolinense within the Solanaceae family.

3. Discussion

We annotated 674.12 Mb of repetitive sequences, accounting for 73.64% of the assembled S. carolinense genome (Table 5). This proportion is significantly higher than the 49.64% estimated by NGS-based K-mer profiling. This discrepancy stems from inherent limitations of the K-mer approach, which primarily detects high-copy and highly diverged repeats while systematically underestimating short repeats, low-complexity regions, and partially homologous sequences. Furthermore, heterozygous peak interference introduces a conservative bias that further depresses K-mer-derived estimates. In contrast, our annotation pipeline integrating de novo prediction and homology alignment effectively overcomes these limitations by capturing diverse repeat families, including LTR retrotransposons, other transposons, tandem repeats, and dispersed repeats. This dual strategy provides broader coverage and a more comprehensive characterization, ultimately yielding a more accurate estimate of the genomic repetitive content.
The S. carolinense genome is highly repetitive, predominantly long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons. Such high repetitive sequences content poses significant challenges for chromosome anchoring, often resulting in contig misassemblies and reduced chromosome mounting rates. In this study, these challenges were effectively overcome through an integrated sequencing strategy combining PacBio HiFi long-reads and Hi-C chromatin conformation capture. The high accuracy and length of HiFi reads enabled reliable spanning of repetitive regions, while Hi-C long-range interaction signals facilitated accurate chromosome-scale scaffoliding. Additionally, precise annotation of repetitive elements pior to assembly further minimized their interference during genome scaffolding.
The estimated genome size of S. carolinense is approximately 915 Mb, which is relatively compact for a Solanum species. This compactness likely confers advantages such as shorter DNA replication cycles and faster cell division rates, reducing energetic costs associated with replication and transcription. Consequently, more resources can be allocated to key invasive traits, including enhanced stress tolerance, seed dormancy, and allelopathy, thereby increasing the species’ competitive ability and invasiveness.
Gene annotation revealed a substantial proportion of functionally uncharacterized genes based on KOG classification. These represent promising candidates for future functional genomics studies. NR-based functional annotation, combined with evolutionary analysis, provides a foundation for investigating adaptive divergence, secondary metabolism, and ecological interactions between S. carolinense and its closely related species.
Effective chemical control of S. carolinense remains challenging despite the evaluation of several herbicides, such as triclopyr and glyphosate for long-term suppression of root sprouting [28]; 2,4-DB for reducing seed set when applied pre-flowering [4], and picloram for limiting root biomass [14]. The species’ deep-rooted architecture and extensive horizontal rhizomes (often exceeding one meter from the mother plant) severely limit chemical control [29]. Moreover, the ability of rhizomes to overwinter and produce new shoots in spring complicates management [30]. By generating a high-quality chromosome-level genome assembly, tis study provides a critical resource for elucidating genomic structural characteristics, gene family composition, and evolutionary patterns underlying these traits. Future research can now focus on identifying key genes regulating rhizome growth and development, root initiation, elongation, stress acclimation, and colonization. Such insighhts will clarify the molecular mechanisms governing seed germination, root growth, plant establishment, and invasive spread, paving te wav for targeted genetic interfventions, novel control technologies, and precise management strategies. Building on this reference genome, priority should be given to developing species-specific molecular markers. These tools would enable rapid, accurate detection of seeds and root fragments at ports of entry, grain processing facilities, and nurseries, without requiring taxonomic expertise or intact plant material.
Despite these advances, current genomic understanding of S. carolinense is constrained by limited sampling. Future studies should address this by (1) expanding phylogeographic sampling across native and invasive ranges through whole-genome resequencing to reconstruct invasion routes and global population structure; (2) integrating transcriptomic and metabolomic datasets to dissect regulatory networks underlying invasiveness and stress resistance; and (3) translating genomic findings into practical applications, such as standardized quarantine detection kits based on population-specific markers integrated with field monitoring. Uitimately, a multidisciplinary framework combining molecular biology, ecology, and quarantine science will be essential for developing a comprehensive, effective management system for this globally invasive weed.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Sample Preparation and Sequencing

Fruits of S. carolinense were intercepted from soybean imports originating from the United States. Seeds were germinated in Petri dishes, then transplanted into nutrient soil, and grown in a controlled plant growth chamber for 50 days under a 12 h (35 °C) / 12 h dark 25 °C) cycle. Collect root, stem, and leaf tissue from a single individual for nucleic acid extraction. The extracted DNA was used for PacBio HiFi, Illumina next-generation, and Hi-C sequencing.
Sequencing libraries for PacBio HiFi, Illumina, and Hi-C platforms were constructed following standard protocols, and raw sequencing data were generated. Quality control and standard filtering were applied to all data sets to remove low-quality and contaminant sequences. Illumina reads were processed using fastp (v0.21.0) [31] and assessed with FastQC (v0.11.9) [32]; reads containing >5% N bases, >50% low-quality bases, adapter contamination, or PCR duplicates were discarded [33] to obtain clean reads. PacBio HiFi data were filtered by removing polymerase reads shorter than 50 bp, reads with quality scores <0.8, and sequences with adapter contamination or self-ligation (SMRTlink, v13.0 https://www.pacb.com/smrt-link/). The remaining subreads were processed into HiFi reads using SMRTLink (v13.0). Hi-C data were first filtered with fastp to remove adapters and low-quality reads, then aligned to the reference genome using HiCUP software. Non-uniquely mapped read pairs, invalid reads, and PCR duplicates were removed to obtain high-quality Hi-C data.

4.2. Genome Characterization and Assembly

Genome characteristics were estimated using K-mer analysis. Filtered reads were decomposed into k-mers and their frequency-depth distributions were obtained using Jellyfish (v2.2.1) [34]. Genome size, heterozygosity, and repeat content were estimated with GenomeScope (v2.0) [35]. To assess potential contamination, the first 50,000 sequencing reads were aligned against the NT database using BLASTn (https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/executables/blast+/2.11.0/, v2.11.0), and taxonomic classification was performed with the taxdump tool to identify possible exogenous sequences.
Geneme assembly was performed using high-quality HiFi reads with hifiasm software (v0.19.8) [36] generating contig sequences and constructing a draft genome. Hi-C data were subsequently used for chromosome-level assembly. Clean Hi-C reads were aligned to draft assembly, and uniquely paired-end aligned reads were screened to evaluate valid and invalid data volumes. Contigs were clustered into chromosome groups using ALLHIC software [37], followed by ordering and orientation within each group. Subsequently, files were converted using the 3D-DNA [38] software and Juicer (v1.6) [39], followed by manual ordering and orientation via Juicebox (v1.11.08) [40]. Redundant contigs were removed, and assembly quality was evaluated in terms of continuity, consistency, and completeness.

4.3. Genome Annotation and Visualization

4.3.1. Repeat Sequences and Non-Coding RNA Annotation

A de novo repeat sequence library was constructed using RepeatModeler (v2.0.6) [41], LTR_FINDER [42] and LTRharvest (v1.6.5) [43], followed by redundancy removal with LTR_retriever (v3.0.1) [44] and library establishment via teclass (v2.1.3) [45]. The resulting library was merged with RepBase, and repeat annotation was performed using RepeatMasker (v4.1.7) [46] and associated tools, to generate a final combined transposable element (TE) dataset. Transfer RNA (tRNA) genes were identified using tRNAscan-SE (v2.0.12) [47], while ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes were predicted with RNAmmer (v1.2) [48]. Other non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) were identified using INFERNAL (v1.1.4) [49] based on the Rfam database [50].

4.3.2. Protein-Coding Gene Annotation

Gene structure was predicted using a combination of transcriptome-based, homology-based, and ab initio methods. Next-generation and third-generation transcriptomes were filtered, aligned, and assembled to reconstruct transcripts. Protein sequences from closely related species were used for homology-based prediction with miniprot (v0.13) [51], and ab initio prediction was conducted using Augustus (v3.5.0) [52], Genscan (v1.0) [53], and glimmerhmm (v3.0.4) [54]. The final gene set was generated by interating all data using Maker (v3.0103) [54] and EVidenceModeler (v2.1.0) [56]. Functional annotation of predicted proteins was performed by alignment against Uniprot [57], NR database [58], KOG, and Pfam databases using Diamond (v2.1.8) [59]. Gene functions and associated pathways were further assigned based on Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) databases. InterProScan (v5.55-88.0) [60] was used to identify protein conserved sequences, motifs, and domains for gene function annotation.

4.3.3. Visualization Analysis

Chromosome-level Hi-C interaction heatmaps were generated using HiCExplorer (v3.7.5) [61] to visualize genomic spatial interaction characteristics based on contig interaction intensity and position. Protein sequences were self-aligned using BLASTp software, and collinear blocks were identified with MCScanX (v0.8) [62]. Finally, a circos plot was generated using the R package circlize (v0.4.16) [63] to integrate and visualize genome structure and collinearity.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we report a high-quality, chromosome-level genome assembly for S. carolinense, generated by integrating PacBio HiFi long-read sequencing, Illumina next-generation sequencing, RNA-seq, and Hi-C chromosome scaffolding technologies. The final assembly spans 915.40 Mb with a contiguity (Contig N50: 51.06 Mb; Scaffold N50: 73.17 Mb) and a chromosomal anchoring rate of 96.05%. Despite a high repeat sequence content (73.64%), and a heterozygosity of 1.13%, the assembly achieved a BUSCO completeness score of 94.7%. Of the 32,206 predicted protein-coding genes, 97.95% were functionally annotated.
This genomic resource offers a critical foundation for investigating the adaptive mechanisms, defense strategies, and reproductive evolution driving the invasiveness and dispersal of S. carolinense. Furthermore, it provides the molecular insights necessary to identify novel herbicide targets and develop precision management strategies. This work serves as a valuable tool for future comparative genomics and transcriptomics analyses aimed at mitigating the ecological impacts on this invasive species.

Author Contributions

Conceptu-alization, J.F. and J.W.; methodology, W.D. and J. L.; software, Y.M.; validation, W.D., J.L. and Y.M.; formal analysis, N.W.; investigation, J.F. and Y.M.; resources, J.L.; data curation, J.W. and L.S.; writing—original draft preparation, L.S.; writing—review and editing, X.S. and J.F.; visualization, N.W.; supervision, J.L. and Y.M.; project administration, N.W.; funding acquisition, J.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (2023YFC2604901).

Data Availability Statement

The PacBio HiFi reads and Hi-C reads generated in this study have been deposited in the Genome Sequence Archive (GSA) [64] of the National Genomics Data Center (NGDC) [65], Beijing Institute of Genomics, Chinese Academy of Sciences / China National Center for Bioinformation, under accession number CRA040133 (https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gsa). The chromosome-level genome assembly of S. carolinense is available on Zenodo under the accession number 10.5281/zenodo.19572094.

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely appreciate Professor Bernal E. Valverde for carefully reviewing and polishing the English manuscript, whose valuable suggestions greatly improved the logical expression and linguistic accuracy of this paper. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.We also extend our gratitude to all laboratory colleagues for their continuous assistance in sample collection, experimental operation and data sorting throughout the research process. In addition, we would like to express our sincere thanks to all anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and insightful feedback that helped us revise and refine this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Summary of Software and Database Versions and Parameters.
Table A1. Summary of Software and Database Versions and Parameters.
Software/Databases Version Parameters
BUSCO [27] 5.4.7 –mode geno
Fastp [31] 0.21.0 -detect_adapter_fo
r_pe
FastQC [32] 0.11.9 -o .
SMRTlink 13.0 default
Jellyfish [34] 2.2.1 count -C -m 19 -s 1
G -g generators -G
4/stats
GenomeScope [35] 2.0 -i histo_all -k kmer
_size -o ./genomes
cope -p ploidy
Hifiasm [36] 0.19.8 default
ALLHIC [37] 0.9.8 e GATC
3D-DNA [38] 201008 q 30
Juicer [39] 1.6 -g matrial -s MboI -t 30 -S early
Juicebox [40] 1.11.08 Coverage
RepeatModeler [41] 2.0.6 -database mydb -threads 16
LTR_FINDER [42] Official release of LTR_FINDER_parallel -threads 16 -
harvest_out -size
1000000 -time 300
LTRharvest [43] 1.6.5 -minlenltr 100 -
maxlenltr 7000 -
mintsd 4 -maxtsd 6 -
motif TGCA -
motifmis 1 -similar
85 -vic 10 -seed 20 -
seqids yes
LTR_retriever [44] 3.0.1 -threads 16 -noanno
Teclass [45] 2.1.3 default
RepeatMasker [46] 4.1.7 -noLowSimple -
pvalue 0.0001
tRNAscan-SE [47] 2.0.12 -E -j tRNA.gff -o
tRNA.result -f
tRNA.struct –thread
16
RNAmmer [48] 1.2 -S euk -m tsu,lsu,ssu
INFERNAL [49] 1.1.4 –cut_ga –rfam
–nohmmonly –fmt 2
Miniprot [51] 0.13 –gff -Iut50
Augustus [52] 3.5.0 –uniqueGeneId=true
–noInFrameStop=true
–gff3=on
–strand=both
Genscan [53] 1.0 default
Glimmerhmm [54] 3.0.4 -f -g
Maker [55] 3.01.03 default
EVidenceModeler [56] 2.1.0 default
Diamond [59] 2.1.8 –evalue 1e-05
InterProScan [60] 5.55-88.0 default
HiCExplorer [61] 3.7.5 -dpi 300 -log1p
-colorMap Reds
-clearMaskedBins
-rotationX 45
-vMin 11
MCScanX [62] 0.8 default
Circlize [63] 0.4.16 default

References

  1. Wise, M.J. Spatial and temporal variability in the structure of the multiple-herbivore community of horsenettle, and evidence for evolutionary responses in host-plant resistance. Arthropod-Plant Interact. 2024, 18, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, G. Y.; Jin, S. H.; Ai, J. G. Species, characteristics and control of harmful plants in Zhejiang Province. J. Zhejiang For. Coll. 2006, 23, 614–624. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zhang, Y.; et al. Prediction of suitable distribution areas of invasive alien plant Solanum carolinense based on ensemble model. Acta Phytophylac. Sin. 2022, 49, 1434–1439. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wang, G. X.; et al. Solanum carolinense, a new record of alien harmful species of Solanaceae in Jiangxi Province. Jiangxi Sci. 2023, 41, 455–457. [Google Scholar]
  5. Wei, X. P.; et al. First discovery and control of invasive weed Solanum carolinense in Beijing. Plant Quar. 2020, 34, 61–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. An, P. T.; Lei, Z. J.; Feng, W. M. Strict prevention of the spread of Solanum carolinense. China Cust. 2022, 37. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wise, M.J.; Mudrak, E.L. Nutrient stress can have opposite effects on the ability of plants to tolerate foliar herbivory and floral herbivory. Oecologia 2023, 202, 783–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Nihranz, C.T.; Helms, A.M.; Tooker, J.F.; Mescher, M.C.; De Moraes, C.M.; Stephenson, A.G. Adverse effects of inbreeding on the transgenerational expression of herbivore-induced defense traits in Solanum carolinense. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0274920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Kariyat, R.R.; Smith, J.D.; Stephenson, A.G.; De Moraes, C.M.; Mescher, M.C. Non-glandular trichomes of Solanum carolinense deter feeding by Manduca sexta caterpillars and cause damage to the gut peritrophic matrix. Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2017, 284, 20162323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Walls, R.; Appel, H.; Cipollini, M.; Schultz, J. Fertility, Root Reserves and the Cost of Inducible Defenses in the Perennial Plant Solanum carolinense. J. Chem. Ecol. 2005, 31, 2263–2288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Coverdale, T.C.; Agrawal, A.A. Experimental insect suppression causes loss of induced, but not constitutive, resistance in Solanum carolinense. Ecology 2022, 103, e3786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. I Mena-Ali, J.; Keser, L.H.; Stephenson, A.G. Inbreeding depression in Solanum carolinense (Solanaceae), a species with a plastic self-incompatibility response. BMC Evol. Biol. 2008, 8, 10–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Vallejo-Marín, M.; Rausher, M.D. THE ROLE OF MALE FLOWERS IN ANDROMONOECIOUS SPECIES: ENERGETIC COSTS AND SIRING SUCCESS INSOLANUM CAROLINENSEL. Evolution 2007, 61, 404–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Zuo, R. L.; Jiang, X. Alien invasive weed—Solanum carolinense. Weed Sci. 2018, 36, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, R.; Xian, X. Q.; Wan, F. H. Prediction of suitable distribution areas of Solanum carolinense in China. J. Biosaf. 2016, 25, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Guo, Y. D.; et al. Research progress on genomics of Pennisetum species. Acta Pratacult. Sin. 2026, 35, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhu, X.; Wang, A.; Wu, H.; Lin, J. Chloroplast genome of silverleaf nightshade ( Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav.), a Weed of National Significance in Australia. Mitochondrial DNA Part B 2020, 5, 2477–2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Zhu, X.C.; Raman, H.; Wu, H.; Lemerle, D.; Burrows, G.E.; Stanton, R. Development of SSR Markers for Genetic Analysis of Silverleaf Nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) and Related Species. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 2012, 31, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Amiryousefi, A.; Hyvönen, J.; Poczai, P. The chloroplast genome sequence of bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara): Plastid genome structure evolution in Solanaceae. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Golas, T.M.; Feron, R.M.C.; Berg, R.G.v.D.; van der Weerden, G.M.; Mariani, C.; Allefs, J.J.H.M. Genetic structure of European accessions of Solanum dulcamara L. (Solanaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 2010, 285, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, H.B.; Jang, J.E.; Son, D.C.; Kang, E.S. The complete chloroplast genome sequence and phylogenetic analysis of an invasive plant Solanum carolinense Linnaeus (Solanaceae) in Korea. Mitochondrial DNA Part B 2026, 11, 451–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Shen, Z. G.; et al. Review of plant whole-genome sequencing and auxiliary assembly technologies. Mol. Plant Breed. 2025, 23, 6094–6103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xie, L. J.; Ye, C. Y.; Shen, E. H. Research progress in plant genome sequencing. Plant Sci. J. 2021, 39, 681–691. [Google Scholar]
  24. Zhang, Y.; Guo, W.; Yuan, Z.; Song, Z.; Wang, Z.; Gao, J.; Fu, W.; Zhang, G. Chromosome-level genome assembly and annotation of the prickly nightshade Solanum rostratum Dunal. Sci. Data 2023, 10, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zhang, H.; Chen, H.; Tan, J.; Huang, S.; Chen, X.; Dong, H.; Zhang, R.; Wang, Y.; Wang, B.; Xiao, X.; et al. The chromosome-scale reference genome and transcriptome analysis of Solanum torvum provides insights into resistance to root-knot nematodes. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1210513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Šimková, H.; Câmara, A.S.; Mascher, M. Hi-C techniques: from genome assemblies to transcription regulation. J. Exp. Bot. 2024, 75, 5357–5365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Manni, M.; Berkeley, M.R.; Seppey, M.; A Simão, F.; Zdobnov, E.M. BUSCO Update: Novel and Streamlined Workflows along with Broader and Deeper Phylogenetic Coverage for Scoring of Eukaryotic, Prokaryotic, and Viral Genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021, 38, 4647–4654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Onen, H.; Ito, M.; Imaizumi, T. Horsenettle (Solanum carolinense L.) plants emerged at different times after corn (Zea mays L.) planting. Weed Biol. Manag. 2006, 6, 55–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, L.-R.; Adhikari, A.; Kang, Y.; Gam, H.-J.; Kang, S.-M.; Kim, K.-Y.; Lee, I.-J. Investigation of Solanum carolinense Dominance and Phytotoxic Effect in Festuca arundinacea with Special Reference to Allelochemical Identification, Analysis of Phytohormones and Antioxidant Mechanisms. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nihranz, C.T.; Walker, W.S.; Brown, S.J.; Mescher, M.C.; De Moraes, C.M.; Stephenson, A.G. Transgenerational impacts of herbivory and inbreeding on reproductive output in Solanum carolinense. Am. J. Bot. 2020, 107, 286–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Chen, S.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, Y.; Gu, J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics 2018, 34, i884–i890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lo, C.-C.; Chain, P.S.G. Rapid evaluation and quality control of next generation sequencing data with FaQCs. BMC Bioinform. 2014, 15, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chen, Y.; Chen, Y.; Shi, C.; Huang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Li, S.; Li, Y.; Ye, J.; Yu, C.; Li, Z.; et al. SOAPnuke: a MapReduce acceleration-supported software for integrated quality control and preprocessing of high-throughput sequencing data. GigaScience 2017, 7, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Marcais, G.; Kingsford, C. Jellyfish: A fast k-mer counter. Tutorialis E Manuais 2012, 1, 1038. Available online: https://github.com/gmarcais/Jellyfish.
  35. Vurture, G.W.; Sedlazeck, F.J.; Nattestad, M.; Underwood, C.J.; Fang, H.; Gurtowski, J.; Schatz, M.C. GenomeScope: fast reference-free genome profiling from short reads. Bioinformatics 2017, 33, 2202–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. 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] [PubMed]
  37. Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, Q.; Ming, R.; Tang, H. Assembly of allele-aware, chromosomal-scale autopolyploid genomes based on Hi-C data. Nat. Plants 2019, 5, 833–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Dudchenko, O.; Batra, S.S.; Omer, A.D.; Nyquist, S.K.; Hoeger, M.; Durand, N.C.; Shamim, M.S.; Machol, I.; Lander, E.S.; Aiden, A.P.; et al. De novo assembly of the Aedes aegypti genome using Hi-C yields chromosome-length scaffolds. Science 2017, 356, 92–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Durand, N.C.; Shamim, M.S.; Machol, I.; Rao, S.S.P.; Huntley, M.H.; Lander, E.S.; Aiden, E.L. Juicer Provides a One-Click System for Analyzing Loop-Resolution Hi-C Experiments. Cell Syst. 2016, 3, 95–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Durand, N.C.; Robinson, J.T.; Shamim, M.S.; Machol, I.; Mesirov, J.P.; Lander, E.S.; Aiden, E.L. Juicebox Provides a Visualization System for Hi-C Contact Maps with Unlimited Zoom. Cell Syst. 2016, 3, 99–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Flynn, J.M.; Hubley, R.; Goubert, C.; Rosen, J.; Clark, A.G.; Feschotte, C.; Smit, A.F. RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 9451–9457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Xu, Z.; Wang, H. LTR_FINDER: an efficient tool for the prediction of full-length LTR retrotransposons. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35, W265–W268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ellinghaus, D.; Kurtz, S.; Willhoeft, U. LTRharvest, an efficient and flexible software for de novo detection of LTR retrotransposons. BMC Bioinform. 2008, 9, 18–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ou, S.; Jiang, N. LTR_retriever: A Highly Accurate and Sensitive Program for Identification of Long Terminal Repeat Retrotransposons. Plant Physiol. 2017, 176, 1410–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Abrusán, G.; Grundmann, N.; DeMester, L.; Makalowski, W. TEclass—a tool for automated classification of unknown eukaryotic transposable elements. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 1329–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Smit, A.; Hubley, R.; Green, P. RepeatMasker Open-4.0. 2013. Available online: https://www.repeatmasker.org/RepeatMasker/.
  47. Lowe, T.M.; Eddy, S.R. tRNAscan-SE: A Program for Improved Detection of Transfer RNA Genes in Genomic Sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25, 955–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lagesen, K.; Hallin, P.; Rødland, E.A.; Staerfeldt, H.-H.; Rognes, T.; Ussery, D.W. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35, 3100–3108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Nawrocki, E.P.; Eddy, S.R. Infernal 1.1: 100-fold faster RNA homology searches. Bioinformatics 2013, 29, 2933–2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Kalvari, I.; Nawrocki, E.P.; Ontiveros-Palacios, N.; Argasinska, J.; Lamkiewicz, K.; Marz, M.; Griffiths-Jones, S.; Toffano-Nioche, C.; Gautheret, D.; Weinberg, Z.; et al. Rfam 14: expanded coverage of metagenomic, viral and microRNA families. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020, 49, D192–D200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Li, H. Protein-to-genome alignment with miniprot. Bioinformatics 2023, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Stanke, M.; Diekhans, M.; Baertsch, R.; Haussler, D. Using native and syntenically mapped cDNA alignments to improve de novo gene finding. Bioinformatics 2008, 24, 637–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Burge, C.; Karlin, S. Prediction of complete gene structures in human genomic DNA. J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 268, 78–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Delcher, A.L.; Bratke, K.A.; Powers, E.C.; Salzberg, S.L. Identifying bacterial genes and endosymbiont DNA with Glimmer. Bioinformatics 2007, 23, 673–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Holt, C.; Yandell, M. MAKER2: an annotation pipeline and genome-database management tool for second-generation genome projects. BMC Bioinform. 2011, 12, 491–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Haas, B.J.; Salzberg, S.L.; Zhu, W.; Pertea, M.; Allen, J.E.; Orvis, J.; White, O.; Buell, C.R.; Wortman, J.R. Automated eukaryotic gene structure annotation using EVidenceModeler and the Program to Assemble Spliced Alignments. Genome Biol. 2008, 9, R7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Buchfink, B.; Xie, C.; Huson, D.H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 2015, 12, 59–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Apweiler, R.; Bairoch, A.; Wu, C.H.; Barker, W.C.; Boeckmann, B.; Ferro, S.; Gasteiger, E.; Huang, H.; Lopez, R.; Magrane, M.; et al. UniProt: The Universal Protein knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32, D115–D119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Deng, Y. Y.; et al. Integrated nr database in protein annotation system and its localization. Comput. Eng. 2006, 32, 71–72. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mulder, N.; Apweiler, R. InterPro and InterProScan: tools for protein sequence classification and comparison. Methods Mol. Biol. 2007, 396, 59–70. [Google Scholar]
  61. Wolff, J.; Rabbani, L.; Gilsbach, R.; Richard, G.; Manke, T.; Backofen, R.; A Grüning, B. Galaxy HiCExplorer 3: a web server for reproducible Hi-C, capture Hi-C and single-cell Hi-C data analysis, quality control and visualization. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020, 48, W177–W184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Wang, Y.; Tang, H.; DeBarry, J.D.; Tan, X.; Li, J.; Wang, X.; Lee, T.-H.; Jin, H.; Marler, B.; Guo, H.; et al. MCScanX: A toolkit for detection and evolutionary analysis of gene synteny and collinearity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, e49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Gu, Z.; Gu, L.; Eils, R.; Schlesner, M.; Brors, B. circlizeimplements and enhances circular visualization in R. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 2811–2812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Zhang, S.; Chen, X.; Jin, E.; Wang, A.; Chen, T.; Zhang, X.; Zhu, J.; Dong, L.; Sun, Y.; Yu, C.; et al. The GSA Family in 2025: A Broadened Sharing Platform for Multi-omics and Multimodal Data. Genom. Proteom. Bioinform. 2025, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Partners, C.-N.M.A. Database Resources of the National Genomics Data Center, China National Center for Bioinformation in 2025. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024, 53, D30–D44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. K-mer distribution plot of S. carolinense.
Figure 1. K-mer distribution plot of S. carolinense.
Preprints 222554 g001
Figure 2. Chromosome interval interaction plot of the S. carolinense genome assembly.
Figure 2. Chromosome interval interaction plot of the S. carolinense genome assembly.
Preprints 222554 g002
Figure 3. Genomic characteristics of 12 pseudochromosomes of S. carolinense.
Figure 3. Genomic characteristics of 12 pseudochromosomes of S. carolinense.
Preprints 222554 g003
Figure 4. GO analysis of S. carolinense.
Figure 4. GO analysis of S. carolinense.
Preprints 222554 g004
Figure 5. KEGG enrichment analysis of S. carolinense.
Figure 5. KEGG enrichment analysis of S. carolinense.
Preprints 222554 g005
Figure 6. KOG analysis of S. carolinense.
Figure 6. KOG analysis of S. carolinense.
Preprints 222554 g006
Figure 7. NR results of S. carolinense.
Figure 7. NR results of S. carolinense.
Preprints 222554 g007
Table 1. Statistics of sequencing data for S. carolinense.
Table 1. Statistics of sequencing data for S. carolinense.
Data Type Total Clean Reads (bp) Total Sequencing Volume (Gb) Average Read Length (bp)
Next-generation 2,655,695,670 396.96 150
HiFi 5,352,783 99.89 18,660.8
Hi-C reads 589,375,206 88.40
Table 2. Statistics of S. carolinense genome assembly.
Table 2. Statistics of S. carolinense genome assembly.
Item Value
Total_length(bp) 915,399,764
total_length_withoutN(bp) 915,399,212
Total_number 128
GC_content 35.607%
N50(bp) 51,062,083
N90(bp) 8,303,358
Min(bp) 20,244
Max(bp) 75,629,554
Table 3. Statistics of final assembly results.
Table 3. Statistics of final assembly results.
Item Value
Total_length(bp) 915,404,164
Total_length_withoutN(bp) 915,399,212
Total_number 104
GC_content(%) 35.61
N50(bp) 73,173,990
N90(bp) 51,062,083
Average(bp) 8,801,963.12
Median(bp) 56,066.50
Min(bp) 20,244
Max(bp) 120,342,759
Table 4. BUSCO evaluation statistics of the S. carolinense assembly.
Table 4. BUSCO evaluation statistics of the S. carolinense assembly.
Item Number Percent(%)
Complete BUSCOs (C) 1529 94.7
Complete and single-copy BUSCOs (S) 1419 87.9
Complete and duplicated BUSCOs (D) 110 6.8
Fragmented BUSCOs (F) 7 0.4
Missing BUSCOs (M) 78 4.8
Total BUSCO groups searched 1614 100
Table 5. Basic statistics of dispersed repeat sequences in the S. carolinense genome.
Table 5. Basic statistics of dispersed repeat sequences in the S. carolinense genome.
Type TE protiens De novo + repbase Combined TEs
Length (Bp) % in genome Length (Bp) % in genome Length (Bp) % in genome
DNA 1,811,710 0.20 100,481,435 10.98 100,521,263 10.98
LINE 15,303,954 1.67 69,198,810 7.56 69,961,278 7.64
SINE 0 0.00 8,089,128 0.88 8,089,128 0.88
LTR 148,227,168 16.19 485,806,018 53.07 495,747,371 54.16
LTR-Gypsy 114,318,519 12.49 222,511,562 24.31 232,561,239 25.41
LTR-Copia 28,768,230 3.14 41,618,884 4.55 47,093,658 5.14
Other 0 0.00 4,271 0.00 4,271 0.00
Unknown 0 0.00 39,009,728 4.26 39,009,728 4.26
Total 165,333,336 18.06 663,615,805 72.49 674,122,462 73.64
Table 6. Statistics of non-coding RNA annotation results in S. carolinense.
Table 6. Statistics of non-coding RNA annotation results in S. carolinense.
Type Copy Average length (bp) Total length (bp) % of genome
miRNA 777 94 73,098 0.008
tRNA 1,159 75 87,390 0.0095
rRNA rRNA 15,127 128 1,931,473 0.211
18S 25 1759 43,980 0.0048
28S 20 4829 96,578 0.0106
5.8S 98 120 11,787 0.0013
5S 14,984 119 1,779,128 0.1944
snRNA snRNA 807 117 94,620 0.0103
CD-box 481 108 51,940 0.0057
HACA-box 63 119 7,496 0.0008
splicing 263 134 35,184 0.0038
scaRNA 0 0 0 0
Table 7. Protein-coding gene prediction results of the S. carolinense genome.
Table 7. Protein-coding gene prediction results of the S. carolinense genome.
Method Software Species Gene number Average gene length (bp) Average CDS length (bp) Average exon per gene Average exon length (bp) Average intron length (bp)
Ab initio GlimmmerHMM 47,188.0 15,053.88 789.56 3.28 241.08 6,269.72
AUGUSTUS 31,562.0 4,299.23 1,156.3 4.8 240.66 826.06
Homology MiniProt Solanum_
lycopersicum
35,233.0 4,098.84 1,024.73 4.27 239.98 940.1
MiniProt Solanum_
pinnatisectum
42,512.0 4,084.14 1,091.4 3.93 277.48 1,020.28
MiniProt Solanum_
stoloniferum
69,669.0 5,382.92 1,320.57 5.52 239.28 898.96
RNAseq TransDecoder 22,010.0 6,318.52 1,171.75 5.76 310.77 952.49
Integration Maker 26,844.0 6,851.66 1,166.87 5.28 292.24 1,240.47
Final set Anno-self 32,206.0 5,209.52 1,149.76 4.78 312.49 982.1
Table 8. Functional annotation results of predicted protein-coding genes.
Table 8. Functional annotation results of predicted protein-coding genes.
Item Count Percentage
All 32,206 100.00%
Annotation 31,547 97.95%
KEGG 20,058 62.28%
Pathway 10,317 32.03%
Nr 30,477 94.63%
Uniprot 30,496 94.69%
GO 18,552 57.60%
KOG 3,522 10.94%
Pfam 22,731 70.58%
Interpro 30,508 94.73%
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.