NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

Supplemental Information

All data transposed

Raw data used for RNASeq and statistical analysis

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27923v1/supp-1

Table S1. Sequencing depth distribution for the leaf samples

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27923v1/supp-2

Table S2. Identification of 128 DEGs at a read depth >0.5X when comparing the inbred vs hybrid that had known annotated descriptions

Gene ID and annotation are displayed according to the reference genome (Denoeud et al. 2014) . A positive fold change (FC) represents upregulated expression in the hybrid as compared to the inbred, while a negative FC represents upregulated expression in the inbred as compared to the hybrid. Average sequencing depth was calculated by averaging all samples and treatments as described by (Dugas et al. 2011) . The GO term number is presented for known genes using AgriGO 2.0 (Tian et al. 2017) . Any GO term with N/A represents unknown GO term. Statistical significance using Bonferroni and FDR are not shown since were lesser than 0.01. Additional GO description of some GO terms can be seen in Table S6.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27923v1/supp-3

Table S3. Gene ontology (GO) terms enriched between treatment when compared to the control

For each comparison, the treatments involved, regulation of expression (upregulated in…), number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs), and their corresponding gene ontology (GO) final branch terms, are summarized. The higher regulation indicates which treatment (C, R, T or R+T) resulted in increased expression of the gene. The final branch GO term represents the last node in the pathways were almost all other enriched gene ontologies converge. No distinction between the GO term classifications (biological process, molecular function, or cellular component) are specified.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27923v1/supp-4

Table S4. Genes found to be differentially expressed and associated to a trait according to the stepwise regression when compared the rust control treatment with no rust control

The regulation represents if the gene expression was upregulated (increased with an increase in the trait), or was downregulated (decreased with an increase of the trait). GO terms with several pathways, are referred to as “Several”, rather than a specific GO term code.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27923v1/supp-5

Table S5. Genes associated with disease-related traits when compared the rust control (R) vs no control (C) treatments in the inbred

All the significant correlations ranged between |0.72| and |0.83|. A positive correlation indicates an increase in gene expression as the trait value increases. Stepwise regression data is not shown.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27923v1/supp-6

Table S6. Genes associated with disease-related traits when compared the rust control (R) vs no control (C) treatments in the hybrid

All the significant correlations ranged between |0.74| and |0.94|. A negative correlation indicates an increase in gene expression as the trait value increases, while positive correlations indicate an increase in gene expression as the trait value increases. Stepwise regression data is not shown.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27923v1/supp-7

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Fabián Echeverría-Beirute conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft, new methods.

Seth C. Murray analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft, critical reviews.

Benoit Bertrand conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft, funding.

Patricia E. Klein analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft, infrastructure and software.

DNA Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding the deposition of DNA sequences:

The trimmed reads for all 23 samples has been deposited at NCBI Short Read Archive under BioProject PRJNA448416, accessions SAMN08832173 - SAMN08832195

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

In the supplemenatry files Tables SI 1 thru Table SI 6, Tables S1-S6 are resumed from the manuscript. The raw data provided in the Supplementary file 2 (SI 2) corresponds to the quality and gene expression used to analyze all treatments. File SI 3 corrresponds to the permission to republish Table 1 from The American Chemical Society.

Funding

This work was supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under Grant APS-OAA-13-000003, the World Coffee Research, and Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies
  Visitors   Views   Downloads