Comparison of Gene Families and Synteny Analysis from Neem Genome

  • Nagesh A. Kuravadi
  • Malali GowdaEmail author
Part of the Compendium of Plant Genomes book series (CPG)


Analysis of gene families is helpful in understanding the gene evolution in species. Here we have studied the orthology of neem genes and constructed the phylogenetic tree based on the gene content in neem genome and comparing it with genes from 23 other plant species using proteinortho. The analysis shows 5832 unique genes with expression in various neem tissues. Following gene family analysis, Synteny analysis was performed which provides relative order of genes in the genome and provides information on genome structure. We aligned citrus (Citrus sinensis) and Arabidopsis genomes with neem contigs using MUMMER program. This identified 24,902 anchored neem contigs which contribute to 161 Mb (62%) of annotated neem genome covering 48% of the citrus genome. The synteny analysis showed a good synteny between neem and citrus and lowest synteny between neem and Arabidopsis.


Synteny Ortholog MUMMER Phylogeny UPGMA 



We acknowledge Genomics facility (BT/PR3481/INF/22/140/2011) at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, Bangalore for sequencing of Neem genomes. We acknowledge Pradeep H, Aarati Karaba, Manojkumar S and Annapurna for their help in NGS library preparation and sequencing. We thank Ashmita G and Divya S for their help in manual curation of SSR markers. We are grateful to Rajanna, National Botanical Garden, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK campus, Bangalore for his help during neem sample collection.


  1. Bhutkar A, Russo S, Smith TF, Gelbart WM (2006) Techniques for multi-genome synteny analysis to overcome assembly limitations. Genome Informatics 17:152–161Google Scholar
  2. Cosentino S, Iwasaki W (2018) SonicParanoid: fast, accurate and easy orthology inference. Bioinformatics 35:149–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Csuos M (2010) Count: evolutionary analysis of phylogenetic profiles with parsimony and likelihood. Bioinformatics 26:1910–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hellmuth M, Wieseke N (2016) Construction of gene and species trees from sequence data incl orthologs, paralogs, and xenologs. arXiv preprint. arXiv:160208268
  5. Kuravadi NA, Yenagi V, Rangiah K, Mahesh HB, Rajamani A, Shirke MD, Russiachand H, Loganathan RM, Lingu CS, Siddappa S (2015) Comprehensive analyses of genomes, transcriptomes and metabolites of neem tree. PeerJ 3:E1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kurtz S, Phillippy A, Delcher A, Smoot M, Shumway M, Antonescu C, Salzberg S (2004) Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes. Genome Biol 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lechner M, Findeiß S, Steiner L, Marz M, Stadler PF, Prohaska SJ (2011) Proteinortho: detection of (Co-) orthologs in large-scale analysis. BMC Bioinf 12:124Google Scholar
  8. Liu D, Hunt M, Tsai IJ (2018) Inferring synteny between genome assemblies: a systematic evaluation. BMC Bioinf 19:26Google Scholar
  9. Soderlund C, Bomhoff M, Nelson WM (2011) SyMAP v3 4: a turnkey synteny system with application to plant genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 39:e68-e68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Xu Q, Chen LL, Ruan X, Chen D, Zhu A, Chen C, Bertrand D, Jiao WB, Hao BH, Lyon MP (2012) The draft genome of sweet orange (Citrus sinensis). Nat GenetGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhao T, Schranz ME (2017) Network approaches for plant phylogenomic synteny analysis. Curr Opin Plant Biol 36:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological SciencesBengaluruIndia
  2. 2.Center for Functional Genomics and Bio-Informatics, The University of TransDisciplinary and Health SciencesBengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations