Results of two-way ANOVAs from grammaticality judgment and of sentence length.

<p><i>Note.</i> CL  =  classifier; ASP  =  aspect marker. *<i>p</i><0.05, **<i>p<</i>0.01, ***<i>p<</i>0.001.</p

Properties of materials in grammaticality judgment experiment with error rate (%) and response latency (ms) from pilot study.

<p><i>Note</i>. CCL  =  concrete classifier; CASP  =  concrete aspect marker; ACL  =  abstract classifier; AASP  =  abstract aspect marker; RT  =  response latency.</p>***<p><i>p<</i>0.001.</p

Results of whole-brain analysis from sentence completion experiment.

<p><i>Note.</i> For the whole brain analyses, unless specified otherwise, significant threshold was held at <i>p_vox</i><0.001, k≥60, corresponding to corrected cluster-level <i>p</i><0.05. CCL  =  concrete classifier; CASP  =  concrete aspect marker; ACL  =  abstract classifier; AASP  =  abstract aspect marker.</p>a<p>Peak coordinates are reported in the MNI system.</p>b<p>Due to a relatively smaller cluster size, BA44 only showed a marginally significant effect of grammatical morpheme (<i>p_cor</i> = 0.06).</p>*<p><i>p_cor</i><0.05, ** <i>p_cor</i><0.01, *** <i>p_cor</i><0.001.</p

Interaction effects between grammatical morpheme type and grammaticality in left BA47 and SMA&SMedFG.

<p><i>Note.</i> GCL  =  grammatical classifier; GASP  =  grammatical aspect marker; UCL  =  ungrammatical classifier; UASP  =  ungrammatical aspect marker; BA47 =  left Brodmann area 47; LSMA&SMFG  =  left supplementary motor area and superior medial frontal gyrus. *<i>p</i><0.05.</p

Task-independent regions of grammatical morpheme processing associated with Chinese nouns and verbs.

<p><i>Note</i>. Classifier-specific regions are drawn in yellow and aspect marker-specific region in blue.</p

Behavioral results in error rate (%) and response latency (ms) of grammaticality judgment and sentence completion tasks.

<p><i>Note</i>. Mean and SD were calculated across item-wise values within each condition. CCL  =  concrete classifier; CASP  =  concrete aspect marker; ACL  =  abstract classifier; AASP  =  abstract aspect marker.</p

Additional file 2 of Haplotype-resolved genomes of two buckwheat crops provide insights into their contrasted rutin concentrations and reproductive systems

Additional file 2: Fig. S11. Syntenic block dotplot within F. esculentum genome. Fig. S12. Syntenic block dotplot between F. esculentum and S. oleracea genomes. Fig. S13. Gene ontology (GO) enrichment analysis of the expanded gene families in F. tataricum. Fig. S14. GO enrichment analysis of the expanded gene families in F. esculentum. Fig. S15. Overview of the rutin biosynthetic pathway in F. tataricum and F. esculentum with expression profiles of key enzyme genes. Fig. S16. Multiple sequence alignment of the UGT2 proteins for the 4 assemblies. Red box indicates the position of UDP-glycosyltransferase functional domian (PF00201). Fig. S17. Sequence alignment of UGT2 promoter sequences in F. tataricum and F. esculentum haplotyped genomes. Fig. S18. Gene collinear relationship between F. tataricum (n=8) and F. esculentum (n=8) genomes. Red lines indicate S-RNase genes loci while blue lines indicate SLF genes loci. Fig. S19 Multiple sequence alignment of the S-RNase proteins for the 2 assemblies. Fig. S20 Sequence alignment of S-RNase promoter sequences in F. tataricum and F. esculentum genomes. Fig. S21. The number of different families within the Copia (a) and Gypsy (b) superfamilies. Fig. S22. The genome comparison between the 2 Mb to 3 Mb interval of Chromosome 8 of Fe-haplotype 1 and FES_r1.0

Additional file 3 of Haplotype-resolved genomes of two buckwheat crops provide insights into their contrasted rutin concentrations and reproductive systems

Additional file 3: Table S1. Sequencing reads used for assembly of F. esculentum genome. Table S2. Sequencing reads used for assembly of F. tataricum genome. Tables S3. BUSCO analysis of genome assembly completeness of F. esculentum and F. tataricum. Table S4. Classification of repetitive elements in F. esculentum and F. tataricum genomes. Table S5. Summary of RNA sequencing data. Table S6. Gene model characteristics of F. esculentum genome. Tables S7. BUSCO evaluation of predicted gene models for two Fagopyrum genomes. Table S8. Gene model characteristics of F. tataricum genome. Table S9. Functional annotation of predicted gene for F. esculentum genome. Table S10. Functional annotation of predicted gene for F. tataricum genome. Table S11. Gene data sets used for comparative genomic analysis. Table S12. Syntenic gene pairs within F. esculentum genome. Table S13. Syntenic gene pairs within F. tataricum genome. Table S14. Summary of gene family clustering. Table S15. GO enrichment analysis of lineage-specific genes in the Fagopyrum. Table S16. Summary of gene families expansion/contraction in species. Table S17. GO enrichment analysis of the expanded gene families in F. tataricum. Table S18. GO enrichment analysis of the expanded gene families in F. esculentum. Table S19. Summary of FeUGT2 promoter cis-acting elements prediction. Table S20. Summary of FtUGT2 promoter cis-acting elements prediction. Table S21. The list of S-RNase in different species. Table S22. The genetic differences within the haploid genome

Expression variation of genes putatively related to ChA biosynthesis detected by RNA-seq profiling.

<p>Expression variation of genes putatively related to ChA biosynthesis detected by RNA-seq profiling.</p

Additional file 1 of Haplotype-resolved genomes of two buckwheat crops provide insights into their contrasted rutin concentrations and reproductive systems

Additional file 1: Fig. S1. PacBio long reads (2 cell) length distribution of F. esculentum. Fig. S2. Genome size and heterozygosity estimation for F. esculentum. Fig. S3. Hi-C map of the Fe-haplotype 1 showing genome-wide all-by-all interactions. The map shows a high resolution of individual chromosomes that are scaffolded and assembled independently. Fig. S4. Hi-C map of the Fe-haplotype 2 showing genome-wide all-by-all interactions. The map shows a high resolution of individual chromosomes that are scaffolded and assembled independently. Fig. S5. Genome size and heterozygosity estimation for F. tataricum. Fig. S6. PacBio long reads (1 cell) length distribution of F. tataricum. Fig. S7. Hi-C map of the Ft-haplotype 1 showing genome-wide all-by-all interactions. The map shows a high resolution of individual chromosomes that are scaffolded and assembled independently. Fig. S8. Hi-C map of the Ft-haplotype 2 showing genome-wide all-by-all interactions. The map shows a high resolution of individual chromosomes that are scaffolded and assembled independently. Fig. S9. Genome alignment between F. tataricum cv. Pinku1 and Ft-haplotype 1. Fig. S10. Genome alignment between F. tataricum cv. Pinku1 and Ft-haplotype 2