AbstractMorinda officinalis is a renowned medicinal and edible plant native to southern China and northern Vietnam. Its dried roots, known as bajitian are extensively used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat various ailments. Driven by the increasing market demand, the wild populations of M. officinalis have been threatened, leading to the surge of cultivated varieties. Here, we present the chromosome-scale genome assemblies of both wild and cultivated M. officinalis, achieved through a combination of nanopore long-read sequencing and Hi-C technology, resulting in high-quality genomes for the wild (423 Mb) and cultivated (425 Mb) M. officinalis, boasting scaffold N50 values of 5.91 Mb and 10.99 Mb, respectively. Additionally, we predicted 31,308 and 29,528 protein-coding genes in wild and cultivated M. officinalis, respectively. Approximately 96.3% and 97.8% of the assembled sequences were anchored to 11 pseudo-chromosomes for the wild and cultivated genomes. The high-quality chromosome-scale genomes of M. officinalis could serve as a valuable resource for understanding the genetic basis of medicinal trait variations, improving cultivation practices, and conserving this ecologically and economically important species.
Background & SummaryMorinda officinalis [Gynochthodes officinalis, taxonomy ID: 266091], a perennial vine belonging to the Rubiaceae family, is a renowned medicinal and edible plant native to the Lingnan region of southern China and northern Vietnam1. This species holds immense importance in traditional Chinese medicine2, where its dried roots, known as “bajitian,” are extensively used to treat a variety of ailments, including impotence, infertility, rheumatism, and arthralgia3,4,5. Interestingly, M. officinalis exists in both wild and cultivated forms, each with distinct characteristics and implications. The wild plants have a more trichome-dense leaf, a thinner vane thickness, a thinner stem, and a poorer root system compared to the cultivated species1 (Fig. 1). In contrast, the cultivated Morinda plants have less trichomes on the leaves, a thicker vane thickness, a thicker stem, and a more abundant root system than the wild counterparts. Research on phytochemical composition has revealed that M. officinalis harbors a diverse array of bioactive constituents, including anthraquinones, iridoids, flavonoids, polysaccharides, volatile oils, and various other noteworthy compounds6. The roots of wild M. officinalis populations have historically served as the primary resource for the extraction of herbal medicine2,4,6. However, due to the sharp increase in market demand, the wild resources of M. officinalis have been significantly threatened, leading to the risk of extinction3. As a result, artificially cultivated M. officinalis has become the primary source of medicinal material in China.Fig. 117-kmer distribution in two Morinda officinalis genomes. (A) Morinda officinalis (cultivated) (B) Morinda officinalis (wild). The dashed line indicates the expected Kmer-peaks.Full size imageCompared to their wild counterparts, the cultivated varieties of M. officinalis, such as the “Gaoji 3” cultivar, exhibit several advantageous traits, including higher yield, improved quality, and enhanced disease resistance3. These cultivated varieties have been selectively bred and optimized for commercial production, often through the integration of modern agricultural practices and biotechnological approaches. Despite the importance of both wild and cultivated M. officinalis, the genomic resources available for this species have been limited. While the genome of the cultivated variety has been previously reported3, the lack of a comprehensive genomic characterization of the wild form has hindered our understanding of the genetic mechanisms underlying the production of medicinal compounds, adaptive traits, and the evolutionary trajectories of this species. The availability of robust genome data represents an invaluable asset for investigating the genetic underpinnings of crucial traits in medicinal plants7,8,9,10,11,12. This rich resource opens up avenues for comprehensive exploration and understanding of the genetic factors governing various characteristics essential for medicinal efficacy3,7.This study aims to address this knowledge gap by presenting the chromosome-scale genome assemblies of both wild and cultivated M. officinalis. By leveraging the power of comparative genomics, we intend to unveil the unique genomic features, identify the key genes and pathways involved in the biosynthesis of bioactive compounds, and elucidate the evolutionary adaptations that have enabled this species to thrive in its native habitats. These high-quality genomic data will not only contribute to the fundamental understanding of M. officinalis but also provide valuable resources for the genetic improvement and sustainable utilization of this important medicinal plant.MethodsSample preparation and sequencingThe fresh leaves of cultivated Morinda officinalis were collected from Zhaoqing City, Guangdong, China (23°23′24″N 112°20′19″E), while the wild type was originally collected from Yunfu City, Guangdong, China (22°41′3″N, 112°8′20″E), and is maintained at the experimental farm of South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, China (23°9′9″N, 113°22′44″E). The DNA extraction process followed the CTAB (Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide) method13, and subsequently underwent purification using the QIAGEN Genomic kit (Cat#13343, QIAGEN). DNA quality and quantity were assessed using complementary techniques. Spectrophotometric analysis with a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) revealed DNA samples with high purity, as evidenced by OD260/280 ratios of 1.8–2.0 and OD260/230 ratios of 2.0–2.2, which are consistent with high-quality genomic DNA. Precise DNA quantification was performed using a Qubit 4.0 fluorometer (Invitrogen, USA), ensuring accurate input for subsequent library preparation. We prepared sequencing libraries using a standardized workflow. DNA fragments were size-selected using the PippinHT system (Sage Science, USA) to obtain optimal fragment lengths, followed by end repair using the NEBNext Ultra II End Repair/dA-tailing Kit (Cat# E7546). Adapter ligation was performed using the SQK-LSK109 kit from Oxford Nanopore Technologies. Sequencing on the GridION X5 platform generated substantial sequencing data, with 12.9 Gb of raw long-reads from wild M. officinalis and 43.91 Gb from cultivated M. officinalis, providing comprehensive genomic coverage for our comparative analysis. Furthermore, the extracted DNA was subjected to digestion using MboI in accordance with the standard Hi-C library preparation protocol, and was subsequently sequenced on the BGI-DIPSEQ platform, generating 79 and 72 Gb of data for both cultivated and wild M. officinalis, respectively (Table S1). For the RNAseq experiment, TIANGEN Kit was used for total RNA extraction from the roots. After a quality control check, library construction and sequencing were performed on the BGI-DIPSEQ platform which generated 30.67 Gb and 66.33 Gb raw data for wild and cultivated M. officinalis, respectively (Table S2).Estimation of genome sizeThe short DNA reads underwent preprocessing to remove adapter sequences, duplicate reads, and low-quality reads using trimmomatic (v3.0)14, employing the following parameters: (adapter:2:30:10:8:true LEADING:3 TRAILING:3 SLIDINGWINDOW:4:15 MINLEN:50). Subsequently, the resulting clean data were utilized for genome size estimation through kmerfreq. 16 bit (Version 2.4) and GCE software (refer to Fig. 1 and Table S3)15. The analysis revealed estimated genome sizes of 383 Mb for wild M. officinalis and 312 Mb for cultivated M. officinalis (Table 1).Table 1 Genome assembly and assessment statistics.Full size table
De novo genome assembly and evaluationThe nanopore long reads obtained from both wild and cultivated M. officinalis were assembled using NECAT16. Subsequently, all assemblies underwent polishing with short reads using NextPolish software17. Finally, the genomes were aligned to resolve contig overlaps using purge dups (v.1.2.3)18, utilizing default parameters. This process yielded genome assemblies of 423 Mb and 425 Mb, with scaffold N50 lengths of 5.91 Mb and 10.99 Mb for wild and cultivated M. officinalis, respectively (as detailed in Table 1 and Table S3).Furthermore, we utilized Hi-C data to align the contig assemblies onto chromosomes. The Juicer software19 facilitated the extraction of uniquely mapped and non-PCR duplicated Hi-C contact reads, followed by integration of the assembled genome into the pseudochromosome-level assembly using 3D-DNA20. Subsequently, the Hi-C assembly output was visualized using Juicebox and manually refined based on the Hi-C contact map. This process resulted in pseudochromosome-level assemblies totaling 412 Mb and 421 Mb, anchored to 11 chromosomes in wild and cultivated M. officinalis, respectively, with scaffold N50 lengths measuring 38.12 Mb and 39.18 Mb, respectively. Moreover, over 96.5% and 97.4% of scaffolds were successfully integrated into the pseudochromosomes of each species, respectively, consistent with the reported chromosome number3 (Figs. 2, 3, Table 1, Table S4).Fig. 2Circos plots of two Morinda officinalis genomes. (A) Image showing the morphological attributes of cultivated and wild M. officinalis (B) Circos plot of M. officinalis (cultivated) and M. officinalis (wild) genome. Concentric circles from outermost to innermost show (A) chromosomes and megabase values, (B) gene density, (C) GC content, (D) repeat density, (E) LTR density, (F) LTR Copia density, (G) LTR Gypsy density and (H) inter-chromosomal synteny (features B-G are calculated in non-overlapping 500 Kb sliding windows).Full size imageFig. 3Hi-C map of the M. officinalis (cultivated) and M. officinalis (wild). Map showing genome-wide all-by-all interactions. The map shows a high resolution of individual chromosomes that are scaffolded and assembled independently. The heat map colors ranging from light pink to dark red indicate the frequency of Hi-C interaction links from low to high (0–10).Full size imageRepeat annotationWe employed a combination of de novo and homolog-based approaches to detect repeat elements within the genomes of five species. For de novo prediction, LTR_FINDER21 and RepeatModeler22 were utilized to identify repeat elements, followed by the construction of a non-redundant library for repeat element identification using RepeatMasker23. As for the homolog-based methods, TRF was utilized to detect tandem repeats, and RepeatMasker was employed to search for repeat elements against RepBase (v.21.12). Overall, 51% and 67.16% of the genome sequences were recognized as repetitive sequences in wild and cultivated M. officinalis, respectively (detailed in Table 2 and Table S5). Notably, long terminal repeats (LTRs) constituted the highest proportions, accounting for 34.29% and 32.77% in wild and cultivated M. officinalis, respectively.Table 2 Genome annotation statistics.Full size tableProtein-coding gene prediction and Non-coding RNA annotationThe prediction of protein-coding genes was conducted using the BRAKER2 pipeline24, resulting in the discovery of 31,308 and 29,528 protein-coding genes in wild and cultivated M. officinalis, respectively (as outlined in Table 2 and Table S6). Notably, more than 97.1% and 96.4% of these genes exhibited complete BUSCOs in the respective species (as indicated in Table S8). All protein-coding genes underwent BLAST analysis against NR, SwissProt, KOG, and KEGG databases, employing a cutoff E-value of 1e-05 (Figs S1–S4).Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes were identified by querying against the plant rRNA database using BLAST. MicroRNAs (miRNA) and small nuclear RNA (snRNA) were searched against the Rfam 12.0 database. Additionally, tRNAscan-SE was utilized for tRNA detection25. This comprehensive approach led to the identification of a total of 2021 and 2291 non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) in wild and cultivated M. officinalis, respectively. Notably, the number of rRNAs in the cultivated variety was found to be twice as high as in the wild type (Table S8).Confirming the phylogenetic position of Morinda officinalis
To show the phylogenetic positions of wild and cultivated Morinda officinalis, in comparison with 12 representative plant species (including and other published genomes of Citrus grandis, Populus trichocarpa, Platycodon grandiflflorus, Daucus carota, Solantum tuberosum, Ophiorrhiza pumila, Gardenia jasminoides, Coffea canephora, Oryza sativa, and Arabidopsis thaliana) (Table S9), the gaps were filtered, and the sequences of each of the 317 single-copy orthologs were extracted and aligned using MAFFT (v 7.310)26. Following alignment, the protein-coding sequences of each species were concatenated to form a supergene sequence. Subsequently, a phylogenetic tree was constructed using IQ-Tree (v 1.6.1)27, employing the parameters ‘-bb 1000 -alrt 1000’ (Fig. 4).Fig. 4Phylogenetic position of M. officinalis. The phylogenetic tree constructed by IQtree with ‘-b 100’ using 317 single copy orthologues of two Morinda species and eight other representative plant species. The numbers below the middle of each branch represent the bootstrap values.Full size imageData RecordsAll the sequencing data are deposited in the Genome Sequence Archive in National Genomics Data Center (NGDC) Genome Sequence Archive (GSA) database under the BioProject accession number PRJCA03238728. The Chromosome-scale genome assemblies are deposited to the NCBI under the accession number GCA_046128155.129 and GCA_048301565.130 for the cultivated and wild M. officinalis, respectively. All the raw and assembled sequencing data, including the chromosome-scale genome assemblies are also deposited to CNGB Sequence Archive (CNSA) of China National GeneBank DataBase (CNGBdb) under accession number CNP000485731. The annotation files are available via Figshare32.Technical ValidationThe completeness and contiguity of the genomes were evaluated using BUSCO (V3.0.2)33 software with the Embryophyta odb10 dataset. The analysis revealed that 97.3% and 97.5% of complete embryophyte BUSCOs were present in the genome assemblies of wild and cultivated M. officinalis, respectively (as detailed in Table 1 and Table S10). Furthermore, DNA short reads were mapped to the genomes using BWA (v.2.21), demonstrating a high mapping rate (>99%) (Table S11).In addition, the contiguity of the genome assembly was assessed using the LTR Assembly Index (LAI), which evaluates the assembly of LTR sequences. Initially, LTRharvest34 was employed to detect LTR sequences with specific parameters. These results were then combined with the output from LTR_FINDER. Subsequently, LTRretriever (v.2.8)35 was utilized to identify high-confidence LTR retrotransposons using default settings. The LAI score was calculated based on these results, yielding values of 13.44 and 12.33 for wild and cultivated M. officinalis, respectively (refer to Table 1). The high quality, contiguity, and completeness of the assembled genomes were corroborated by multiple lines of evidence36.
Code availability
The parameters of the software were default. No specific script was used in this work.
ReferencesLuo, Z. et al. Phenotypic, chemical component and molecular assessment of genetic diversity and population structure of Morinda officinalis germplasm. BMC genomics 23, 605 (2022).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Liu, M. et al. A systematic review on polysaccharides from Morinda officinalis How: Advances in the preparation, structural characterization and pharmacological activities. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 118090 (2024).Wang, J. et al. A high-quality genome assembly of Morinda officinalis, a famous native southern herb in the Lingnan region of southern China. Horticulture Research 8 (2021).Zhang, J.-h et al. Morinda officinalis How.–A comprehensive review of traditional uses, phytochemistry and pharmacology. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 213, 230–255 (2018).Article
CAS
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Luo, H. et al. Anti-inflammatory naphthoates and anthraquinones from the roots of Morinda officinalis. Bioorganic Chemistry 110, 104800 (2021).Article
CAS
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Yue, J. et al. Isolation, phytochemistry, characterization, biological activity, and application of Morinda officinalis How oligosaccharide: a review. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, rgad096 (2023).Chen, H. et al. Chromosome-level Alstonia scholaris genome unveils evolutionary insights into biosynthesis of monoterpenoid indole alkaloids. iScience (2024).Sahu, S. K. et al. Chromosome-scale genomes of commercially important mahoganies, Swietenia macrophylla and Khaya senegalensis. Sci Data 10, 832, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02707-w (2023).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Xian, L. et al. The draft genome and multi-omics analyses reveal new insights into geo-herbalism properties of Citrus grandis ‘Tomentosa’. Plant Science 325, 111489 (2022).Article
CAS
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Fan, Y. et al. The Clausena lansium (Wampee) genome reveal new insights into the carbazole alkaloids biosynthesis pathway. Genomics 113, 3696–3704 (2021).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Fan, Y. et al. Dissecting the genome of star fruit (Averrhoa carambola L.). Horticulture research 7 (2020).Sahu, S. K. & Liu, H. Long-read sequencing (method of the year 2022): The way forward for plant omics research. Molecular Plant 16, 791–793 (2023).Article
CAS
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Sahu, S. K., Thangaraj, M. & Kathiresan, K. DNA extraction protocol for plants with high levels of secondary metabolites and polysaccharides without using liquid nitrogen and phenol. International Scholarly Research Notices 2012, 205049–205054 (2012).
Google Scholar
Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Liu, B. et al. Estimation of genomic characteristics by analyzing k-mer frequency in de novo genome projects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.2012 (2013).Chen, Y. et al. Efficient assembly of nanopore reads via highly accurate and intact error correction. Nature Communications 12, 60 (2021).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Hu, J., Fan, J., Sun, Z. & Liu, S. NextPolish: a fast and efficient genome polishing tool for long-read assembly. Bioinformatics 36, 2253–2255 (2020).Article
CAS
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Guan, D. et al. Identifying and removing haplotypic duplication in primary genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 36, 2896–2898 (2020).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Durand, N. C. et al. Juicer provides a one-click system for analyzing loop-resolution Hi-C experiments. Cell systems 3, 95–98 (2016).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Dudchenko, O. et al. De novo assembly of the Aedes aegypti genome using Hi-C yields chromosome-length scaffolds. Science 356, 92–95 (2017).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Xu, Z. & Wang, H. LTR_FINDER: an efficient tool for the prediction of full-length LTR retrotransposons. Nucleic acids research 35, W265–W268 (2007).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Flynn, J. M. et al. RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 9451–9457 (2020).Article
ADS
CAS
MATH
Google Scholar
Tarailo‐Graovac, M. & Chen, N. Using RepeatMasker to identify repetitive elements in genomic sequences. Current protocols in bioinformatics 25, 4.10. 11–14.10. 14 (2009).Article
Google Scholar
Brůna, T., Hoff, K. J., Lomsadze, A., Stanke, M. & Borodovsky, M. BRAKER2: automatic eukaryotic genome annotation with GeneMark-EP+ and AUGUSTUS supported by a protein database. NAR genomics and bioinformatics 3, lqaa108 (2021).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lowe, T. M. & Chan, P. P. tRNAscan-SE On-line: integrating search and context for analysis of transfer RNA genes. Nucleic acids research 44, W54–W57 (2016).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Molecular biology and evolution 30, 772–780 (2013).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Nguyen, L.-T., Schmidt, H. A., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: A Fast and Effective Stochastic Algorithm for Estimating Maximum-Likelihood Phylogenies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32, 268–274, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu300 (2014).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
NGDC BioProject https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/bioproject/browse/PRJCA032387 (2024).NCBI GenBank http://identifiers.org/insdc:JBLRXP000000000.1 (2025).NCBI GenBank http://identifiers.org/insdc:JBLRXP000000000 (2025).CNGB Sequence Archive (CNSA) of China National GeneBank DataBase (CNGBdb) https://db.cngb.org/search/project/CNP0004857/ (2024).Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25603917 (2024).Simão, F. A., Waterhouse, R. M., Ioannidis, P., Kriventseva, E. V. & Zdobnov, E. M. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics 31, 3210–3212 (2015).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Ellinghaus, D., Kurtz, S. & Willhoeft, U. LTRharvest, an efficient and flexible software for de novo detection of LTR retrotransposons. BMC bioinformatics 9, 1–14 (2008).Article
MATH
Google Scholar
Ou, S. & Jiang, N. LTR_retriever: a highly accurate and sensitive program for identification of long terminal repeat retrotransposons. Plant physiology 176, 1410–1422 (2018).Article
CAS
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Lawniczak, M. K. et al. Standards recommendations for the earth BioGenome project. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2115639118 (2022).Article
MATH
Google Scholar
Cheng, S. et al. 10KP: A phylodiverse genome sequencing plan. GigaScience 7, 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giy013 (2018).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Download referencesAcknowledgementsThis work was supported by the Special Funds for the Cultivation of Guangdong College Students’ Scientific and Technological Innovation (PDJH2021a0073), the Open Competition Program of Ten Major Directions of Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation for the 14th Five-Year Plan of Guangdong Province (2022SDZG07), the Shenzhen Municipal Government of China (KCXFZ20201221173013035), the Key Laboratory of Genomics, Ministry of Agriculture, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518120, China, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of core collection of crop genetic resources research and application, and Shenzhen Engineering Laboratory of Crop Molecular Design and Breeding, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518120, China. This work is part of the 10KP project37 and is also supported by China National GeneBank (CNGB).Author informationAuthor notesThese authors contributed equally: Ruirui Li, Xiaodie Geng, Min Liu.Authors and AffiliationsState Key Laboratory of Genome and Multi-omics Technologies, BGI Research, Shenzhen, 518083, ChinaRuirui Li, Min Liu, Tong Wei, Huan Liu & Sunil Kumar SahuCollege of Life Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, ChinaRuirui LiBGI Research, Wuhan, 430074, ChinaRuirui Li, Min Liu, Tong Wei & Sunil Kumar SahuCenter for Medicinal Plant Research, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, ChinaXiaodie Geng, Yanqun Li & Hong WuYunnan University, 650091,, Yunnan, ChinaXiaodie GengChinese Medicine School, Yunfu, 527400, ChinaGuangming LiuAuthorsRuirui LiView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarXiaodie GengView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarMin LiuView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarGuangming LiuView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarTong WeiView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarHuan LiuView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarYanqun LiView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarSunil Kumar SahuView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarHong WuView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarContributionsH.W. and H.L. led and designed this project. H.W. and S.K.S. conceived the study. X.G., G.L. and Y.L. collected the leaf and tissue samples. S.K.S., M.L. contributed to the sample preparation and performed the genome and chromosome-scale assembly. M.L., R.L. and S.K.S. performed the genome and chromosome-scale assembly and annotation. S.K.S., M.L. and R.L. wrote the original draft manuscript. H.W., H.L., T.W., X.G. revised and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.Corresponding authorsCorrespondence to
Sunil Kumar Sahu or Hong Wu.Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional informationPublisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Supplementary informationSupplementaryFig1SupplementaryFig2SupplementaryFig3SupplementaryFig4Supplementary tablesRights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleLi, R., Geng, X., Liu, M. et al. Chromosome-scale genomes of wild and cultivated Morinda officinalis.
Sci Data 12, 443 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-04776-5Download citationReceived: 25 April 2024Accepted: 07 March 2025Published: 17 March 2025DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-04776-5Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative