Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aehg abnsqetrn oeta eas fterrpdgot.Te r hrfr tlzdfor utilized increasing. therefore the steadily reasons, are is different applications, They those For specific for 2013). growth. suited Styles, and or rapid (Finnan conditions, their biofuel Torres-Su´arez, as of Fraguas-S´anchez or and materials because Cannabis inflammation, 2019; building on potential in al., storage effects sequestering et carbon on carbon (Atalay research high conducted 2018; and have al., being 2015), et also al., Poleszak is et 2018; cancer (Whiting seizures and like depression conditions neurological and for applications medical of sativa Cannabis – Introduction 1. sustainability determination, sex marijuana, hemp, time, authors first joint rainer.melzer[at]ucd.ie considered udc.ie; Keywords: be [at] should susanne.schilling and correspondence: work for this ˆ: to equally contributed authors These *: the outline of we nature Furthermore, multi-purpose detail. in of system that understanding determination opportunities our sex environmental unique and species’ engineering, the medicinal, as tremendous well time flowering development, flower female of genetics the evidence the Because Consequently, decade, synthesis. world. past cannabinoid the the around In countries many century. of in of last biology legislation consumption the of the relaxation throughout of Because the development banned to purposes. and widely lead recreational been did and has properties spiritual medicinal plant medicinal, its the for effects, and psychoactive oil have fibre, can of source a as millennia sativa Cannabis Abstract 2020 1, October 1 1 Schilling* Susanne and Breeding Biology, of Crop: Applications the of Cream The nvriyCleeDublin College University LouiseRyan , .sativa, C. nutyi ann oetato n h edfrseilzdvreis dpe olclclimatic local to adapted varieties, specialized for need the and traction more gaining is industry uligmaterials, building sa xrodnrl estl pce.Hm n t osnmrjaa both marijuana, cousin its and Hemp species. versatile extraordinarily an is 1 sahgl estl rpwt oeso ieetue Fgr ) hr r multitude a are There 1). (Figure uses different of dozens with crop versatile highly a is Cannabis DavidHunt , nldn eetisgt rmtxnm,mrhlg n eois iha mhsso h eeisof genetics the on emphasis an with genomics, and morphology taxonomy, from insights recent including Cannabis Cannabis 1 CarolineA.Dowling , swl as well as Cannabis ilg urnl rgessa nuuulsed uuecalnewl et rsrethe preserve to be will challenge future A speed. unusual an at progresses currently biology ldink ta. 08 us,21) eodta,fir aite of varieties fibre that, Beyond 2011). Russo, 2018, al., Sledzi´nski et ´ Cannabis n ohresismdcnlpoete n utiaiiyavnae simultaneously. advantages sustainability and properties medicinal its harness to and , anbssativa Cannabis anbssativa Cannabis 1 EveOReilly , Cannabis Cannabis eodr compounds secondary drvdpout r h ujc frnwdatninHr,w eiwthe review we attention.Here, renewed of subject the are products -derived nanutshell a in oe so pca neeta h ieo anbni ytei,w explore we synthesis, cannabinoid of site the as interest special of is flower anbnis rpbedn,flwrdvlpet flowering development, flower breeding, crop cannabinoids, , ∗ 1 1 nonte. erry AntoinetteS.P , JiaqiShi , 1 , hc aebe hw ordc an nausea pain, reduce to shown been have which Cannabis ∗ er.Tgte,tepcueeegsthat emerges picture the Together, bears. 1 OliverKinnane , .sativa C. aebe sdfor used been have , 1 aulF.McCabe P , Cannabis Cannabis 1 andRainerMelzer , 1 Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. anbnl(H) eedn nteTCcneto h ln rmr pcfial h re inflorescence, dried the specifically more or plant the of content THC the Cannabis on Depending (THC). cannabinol See feed. animal as Cannabis used be can products. in consumption. and hemp human used protein-rich of for been is oil photos have pressed for for plant is pressed 9 hemp oil or the Figure biofuel after the of also for remaining of roots processed cake stalks be The seed The can the materials. a seeds Furthermore, trials. building The clinical has and remedies. in that paper herbal demonstrated textiles, (CBD), traditional been into cannabidiol have processed that including be uses phytocannabinoids can medical efficacious of produce range flowers wide female on present 1: Figure sete lsie smrjaa(rdu-ye lnsaoe03 H)o ep(betp,below (fibre-type, hemp or THC) 0.3% above plants drug-type, (or marijuana as classified either is spoal etkonfroescnaycmon,tepyhtoi usac tetrahydro- substance psychotropic the compound, secondary one for known best probably is anbsi utproecrop. multipurpose a is Cannabis h ssfor uses The 2 Cannabis r aiod h trichomes The manifold. are Cannabis plant Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 06.Tog h oae opiesm 70seis(hn ta. 01,te oti eaieyfwwell- few relatively Group, contain they Phylogeny 2011), Angiosperm al., super-models (The plant et flowering eudicots (Zhang and The species are 7700 plants. which some model Rosales, comprise characterized order Rosales the the Though and to 2016). expression dominant unisexual belong sex the rosids that research. of urticalean far future note evolution The of by The to area are 2002). interesting interesting flowers al., an is bisexual et is It Sytsma group whereas this 2014; 2002). rosids, in (Renner, al., urticalean determination general group the et sex in a in (Sytsma angiosperms form prevalent they in 3) fig relatives) be system or (Figure and to (mulberry rosids (elms appear Moraceae Ulmaceae urticalean flowers the the the to with Together and related as family). (Page closely known (nettle valuable most Urticaceae are economically and Cannabaceae plants family) phylogeny, those angiosperm of the Within both make that production 2006). compound Nagel, secondary of site 2013). al., et shrubs, (Yang Cannabis or flowers unisexual trees inconspicuous which are among the of Cannabaceae is relative world the family the closest of the throughout The in species regions originated species Most tropical have other and 2015). to many temperate al., estimated with Magall´on in shares been et distributed have 2020; are Cannabaceae al., and The et Cannabis ago, 2013). (Jin years al., 3) million et 90 (Figure Yang to 2020; 70 al., ca. et (Jin species 120 genus generated The been also have plant same 2004). the al., on flowers et female (Moliterni and 2d) male (Figure with lines monoecious breeding, through Cannabis 2018). al., et recognized: Zhang be should subspecies sativa C. and Cannabis cultures. suspension 2. cell via production cannabinoid of future industry. the building We as the species. well in Since as dioecious as summarized predominantly well resources. is this as genomics in medicine available of determination in currently sex perspectives applications on the future emphasis summarize and an also applications with 2015). high the control al., a as time et retain well flowering discuss (Sawler lines as We crops marijuana past other biology and the in the breeding. hemp during found Hence, review not THC we crops. is of high-value Here, that heterozygosity, other use and as recreational 3). variability extent chapter even genetic same (see of and the hemp level to medical of as bred prohibition on seen not the be ban was of can the because V However, easing and classification IV refined decade. been more III, have chemotypes A countries while classification. Many marijuana taxonomic being strict II a and not I and chemotype legal a mainly of is which THC), 0.3% Cannabis .indica C. rz sativa Oryza Cannabis Sal 2015) (Small, sahr s hrfr,teecpinrte hnterl ntefml.Hwvr trait a However, family. the in rule the than rather exception the therefore, is, herb a as rdc eaaeml n eaeflwr,adtetihmsi h eaeiflrsecsaethe are inflorescences female the in trichomes the and flowers, female and male separate produce stebtnclnm fagnsta itrclyicue he species, three includes historically that genus a of name botanical the is sadocosseis enn hr r aeadfml niiul Fgr ac.However, 2a-c). (Figure individuals female and male are there meaning species, dioecious a is Cannabis oee,snetetreseiscnitrrs,te r lootncniee n igespecies, single one considered often also are they intercross, can species three the since However, . codn otepyoanbni rfieit itnt’hmtps a lob sfl with useful, be also can ’chemotypes’ distinct into profile phytocannabinoid the to according uuu lupulus Humulus rc,mnct)aeol itnl eae to related distantly only are monocots) (rice, systematics spr fteCnaaee ml aiyo oeigpat ih1 eeaadsome and genera 10 with plants flowering of family small a Cannabaceae, the of part is Cannabis Cannabis . eetgntcdt upr h igeseiscnetadrcmedta three that recommend and concept single-species the support data genetic Recent hp seooial motn o h erbeigidsr.Bt o and hop Both industry. brewing beer the for important economically is (hop) stegenus the is aooyadcnaiodsnhssa ela oe eeomn and development flower as well as synthesis cannabinoid and taxonomy anbssativa Cannabis Humulus Cannabis subsp. 3 Yn ta. 03,wihcnit ftrespecies, three of consists which 2013), al., et (Yang nmn onre hogottels etr,it century, last the throughout countries many in sativa Cannabis rbdpi thaliana Arabidopsis Cannabis subsp. , Cannabis uuerl nassanbesociety sustainable a in role future ’ h iegslaigto leading lineages the , indica ss estl,w ics its discuss we versatile, so is n subsp. and taeces Brassicales) cress, (thale Cannabis .sativa C. , ruderalis eerhand research .ruderalis C. Arabidopsis Cannabis (Q. Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ntefil a.Teclia sdocoswt eae()adml niiul c.Mneiu lnso the of (d). plants plant Monoecious individual (c). one individuals in male flowers and female (b) and female flowers with male dioecious show is 32’ cultivar ‘Felina The cultivar (a). field the in 2: Figure epvreisof varieties Hemp anbssativa Cannabis . Cannabis 4 lnso h epclia Fnl’growing ‘Finola’ cultivar hemp the of plants Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. upss o ln eeisrsac,tepeoyi n eei iest sagl ie si provides it come. as to sure mine, different are same gold of more in the a multitude many traits at a is but many However, chapters, for diversity of field. subsequent lines basis genetic the the new genetic and in in the produce crop phenotypic outlined uniformity study a to the of to as breeders research, degree possibility by problematic, the genetics high harnessed be plant a can be For possesses diversity can purposes. phenotypic it diversity and when existing genetic handle the of to time, level best (our high substantial usually the be is farmers, can diversity and phenotypic breeders the For cultivar one within 2017; even al., that observations). et fact unpublished Raman the 2017; to McPartland, many contribute of and further dioecy Grassi The 2016; 2020b). Merlin, al., plant content, and et family) Schilling (CBD) (Clarke cannabidiol (bean expression and Fabaceae sex (THC) and and tetrahydrocannabinol architecture response, 2019) . photoperiod al., 2010) shape, et leaf al., height, Zheng et Schmutz 2020a; 2017; al., sativa the al., Cannabis et 2019), et Schilling al., determination (Cao 2019; sex et regulation for al., time Zhang model flowering et 2019; important for (Li al., an expression as et serve sex (Aranzana which exist and relatives), and genomes pumpkin are annotated (cucumber, that and Cucurbitaceae plants assembled well-characterized well relatively several the to which Among 2015). related al., closely (Magall´on et 3) more (Figure ago years million (e.g. yellow approximate infer in and to shaded used be groups to can taxonomic bottom relationship the the phylogenetic at of timescale their The inclusive and eudicots). are times. are divergence species blue which Fabids, selected in to belong Some shaded Rosales groups Taxonomic Rosales. order depicted. the to belong 3: Figure Cannabis hlgntcpsto of position Phylogenetic eaae oe10mlinyasao hs edn orc and rice to leading those ago, years million 120 some separated tefi hntpclyeteeydiverse. extremely phenotypically is itself Cannabis r ayRsca pce rs aiy pl,pahadrltvs,for relatives), and peach apple, family, (rose species Rosaceae many are anbssativa Cannabis Cannabis ie n hsterltvl ihlvl fheterozygosity of levels high relatively the thus and lines 5 Cannabis Cannabis . Cannabis lnsvr nnmru risincluding traits numerous in vary plants oedvlpet nti rn are arena this in developments Some . eog oteCnaaee which Cannabaceae, the to belongs Cannabis oe10t 140 to 130 some Cannabis are Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. nadto otefiedffrn hmtps lotehm-aiun itnto sue ocharacterize to used is distinction hemp-marijuana the also chemotypes, different five Hammond, the and different Meijer to de addition 2009a; al., In et Meijer THCA. (de of respectively 4). overall, amounts 2005)(Figure phytocannabinoids low of very to levels to refer low low very V and phytocannabinoids. levels and as CBDA mass IV high dry Chemotype have their usually plants of are III These % plants, type jurisdiction. 20 II contrast, or to type country In up the and produce on I depending to type regulations, bred Both, ratio strong are the underlie plants 1973). means can II Beckstead, and This type ‘marijuana’ and 1973). as In (Small Beckstead, classified amounts and 1. high (Small equal on than produce CBGA approximately based I’) larger and in ‘type CBDA much classification (short of is I phylogenetic levels THCA/CBDA chemotype low a of of only Plants should and constitute 4). THCA It necessarily (Figure of 1973). ‘chemotypes’ Beckstead, levels not programmes. different and the five do Small breeding into stipulated 2009b; categorized for they al., has be and et that This Meijer The classifications however, (de chemical profiles. relationships 2009a). mind, evolutionary for phytocannabinoid al., in distinct concept et kept their useful Meijer by be very characterized de a are 2016; are that 2019). al., chemotypes chemotypes al., et different et (Aizpurua-Olaizola of Vergara between description 2019; al., in et anything (Aryal or fungi and but plants 5), other (Figure Cannabis synthase in CBDA found a and been THCA by have mature to pyrophosphate related genes most closely synthase-like geranyl of CBGA, is content and from and 1997) CBCA synthesized acid al., converts THCA the both synthase et olivetolic and (CBCA) (Morimoto are acid CBCA CBDA THCA Cannabichromenic non-cannabinoids, to and enzymes, CBGA 4). two 1998)(Figure CBDA related from Zenk, and closely 1996). molecules synthesized (Fellermeier (Figure two al., prenyltransferase all molecules is et by precursor chemically Taura CBGA synthesized same 2012; However, the while biochemically al., from are et produced one. THCA (Shoyama are synthase psychotropic and and CBDA structure major in the similar 4). very is are THC above mentioned phytocannabinoids, all 2016). al., Among et (Aizpurua-Olaizola period leaves vegetative within growth in leaves’) the detected (‘sugar during leaves be times and also flowers, certain can subtending phytocannabinoids at bracts, concentrations, perigonal lower in of precise- However, smoking) trichomes more inflorescences. decar- from during inflorescences, secreted their example female are in (for in they consumed treatment produced ly predominantly be high-temperature are to However, by Phytocannabinoids (CBG), THCA. need generated 2016). and phytocannabinoids usually cannabigerol (Moreno-Sanz, CBDA system, are CBGA, perspective: endocannabinoid which as human forms, i.e. commercial the group, boxylated and acid in carboxylic active medical a be with a to form 4). carboxylated from phytocannabinoids (Figure the attention (THC) three for in acid nabinoids 2014), of compliance tetrahydrocannabinol (Pertwee, centre and legal described (CBD) the or cannabidiol phytocannabinoids at 8) different usually chapter 100 over are effect involves are entourage goals there breeding (see com- While optimal major extracts the discussion) the plant ensure detailed of in to products. a one profiles components non-psychoactive phytocannabinoid for Hence, active of 8 use. of manipulation system. chapter recreational targeted bination endocannabinoid and (see for prediction human to applications exploitations accurate the medical and commercial the by for cannabinoids, as produced interest plant-derived well those great as for or of here cannabinoids are phytocannabinoids synthetic Phytocannabinoids from term generated from be the them can use that distinguish products We valuable phytocannabinoids. and interesting are most commercially the biosynthesis of One phytocannabinoid of genetics The complex: Evermore 3. Cannabis lnscnhv eyhg eeso htcnaiod rcoet opyoanbnisa all, at phytocannabinoids no to close or phytocannabinoids of levels high very have can plants lns(iue4.I h H/HAcneti h r oe asi eo .- ,these %, 0.2-1 below is mass flower dry the in content THC/THCA the If 4). (Figure plants Cannabis Cannabis lnswihhv BAa hi oiatpyoanbni or phytocannabinoid dominant their as CBGA have which plants oesi o d ejre l,20a.Itrsigy CBDA Interestingly, 2009a). al., et Meijer (de low is flowers Cannabis 6 lnsTC n BAaebt produced both are CBDA and THCA plants anbsitself Cannabis Cannabis yteie phytocan- synthesizes lnscnroughly can plants Cannabis plants Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. tp I)wihsrnl eebemrjaai vrl ln n noecneacietr Gas tal., et (Grassa architecture inflorescence and less plant content taller, overall THC/THCA marijuana low be in with with to marijuana plants tend distinct also resemble plants are quite strongly hemp there while phenotypically which However, inflorescences be III) structures. of flower (type set can populations dense dense less marijuana distinct a with genetically and with and two branched and hemp bushier forming Further, being typically varieties can generally marijuana 2015). marijuana plants and and al., hemp hemp between et threshold with differentiation this (Sawler genetically, The jurisdiction drawn the 2017). on Mead, be (depending 2020; also marijuana al., as et that (Brunetti above vary) of hemp, can and varieties as categorized hemp I usually synthase. considered are Chemotypes CBCA plants be for flowers. can encoding chemotypes immature low-THC is young other which in the C, produced while locus only marijuana, a is Cannabis considered also CBCA be is allele varieties, recessive can there homozygous all II further, a almost by synthases matters caused in CBDA complicate is However, To and which IV). O. V, (chemotype THCA chemotype locus CBGA categorized non-functional of of are only accumulation cannabinoids that of the levels in B0indicates overall results which intermediate). present, CBDA are and (THCA B II loci. synthase) B CBDA the B CBCA active by via an (CBCA) encoded for acid are THCA cannabichromenic (encoding synthases via or (THCA) different synthase acid CBDA The pyrophosphate tetrahydrocannabinolic via cannabigerolic synthase. geranyl into (CBDA) molecules precursor metabolised acid precursor cannabidiolic is The into the CBGA synthase, (OA). from enzymes. prenyltransferase acid different olivetolic a and by involving synthesised (GPP) pathway first multi-step is a (CBGA) acid via synthesised are noids 4: Figure D /B D lnspouepeoiatyCD ceoyeII.Peec fB of Presence III). (chemotype CBDA predominantly produce plants . htcnaiod,snhss eoye n hmtpsof chemotypes and genotypes synthases, Phytocannabinoids, T /B 7 T lnspouemil HA(hmtp ) while I), (chemotype THCA mainly produce plants T ecdn o natv HAsnhs)adBD and synthase) THCA active an for (encoding Cannabis T n B and Cannabis aite ihvr low very with varieties D eut nchemotype in results . Phytocannabi- Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. )(rsae l,21;Lvrye l,21) hsi loterao h hs ope oicudntbe not could loci complex these why reason the also is This 2019). tandem published al., (Figure first multiple et challenging Laverty the more of even in 2018; cassettes loci resolved al., these in terminal of et long analysis embedded (Grassa with and be assembly interspersed 5) the regularly to making are synthase seem retrotransposons, which 2018). (LTR) genes, functional al., themselves repeat synthase et and genes non-functional (Grassa putatively synthase pseudo- of 5) THCA of duplications (Figure chromosome and number The same CBDA a the 2019). The with on al., arrangement cassettes et different genomic (Laverty three distinct complex in genetically more genes are recombination even they detectable an that still different notion revealed albeit a the low genome respective supports a of the While ‘Finola’ cultivar Further, loci surrounding sequencing 2019). the two marijuana other. sequences al., each the in DNA the et from between the (Laverty in and different genomes, rate synthase only drastically both ‘Finola’ THCA are in present functional cultivar genes region a is hemp synthase same for gene the the encodes by approximately synthase only rather of to (Grassa CBDA genome but mapping genome Sequencing Kush’ functional gene, other ‘Purple same a the the 2019). the in that while and al., counterpart indicates one clear et Weiblen Kush’ of a Laverty 2019; alleles ‘Purple without the by al., 2018; respectively, that encoded et hemp, al., indicated Laverty be and locus, et technology to marijuana 2018; single sequencing seem in al., one third-generation not loci et with at do distinct (Grassa generated synthases alleles complex CBDA genomes codominant and draft more of THCA New is idea the situation 2015). the the and the al., of et with observed that correlation consistent apparent also A were became was generation 2015). it findings chemotype F2 al., 2015). these respective the al., et although the in et Weiblen However, (Weiblen with observed et 2003; a mapped synthase all Meijer al., towards be were CDBA (de et could pointed plants or Meijer individuals locus generation III THCA THCAS/CBDAS (de II F2 type either 1:2:1 type the and of of intermediate findings in II expression distribution earlier type profiles in expected confirmed I, phytocannabinoid resulting the This type of plants, with 2015). pattern pattern: II al., segregation inheritance type type et Mendelian The mainly and (Weiblen of CBDA I 2003). Purple generation as type high-THC F1 al., well between an between as in cross crosses THCA resulted a This of producing both, III). by producing (chemotype detail minimal plants, Finola in overall low-THC II analysed in and another was I) resulting chemotypes while (chemotype the knockout Kush 2009b). (C) of a 2009a, locus basis al., with genetic independent et The production, an Meijer precursor (de by 4) for encoded (Figure relevant is levels is synthase and phytocannabinoid (O) Meijer CBCA (de locus model, 4) independent this 2016). (Figure al., to accumulates et according CBGA, Welling Further, (B precursor, 2015; the al., I et and chemotype Onofri produced be 2005; are Hammond, (B will THCA B gene nor plant allele synthase CBDA the the neither the loci, exist, of alleles both to (B non-functional hypothesized or III were either the chemotype alleles for of or codominant encoding presence two are B the they B synthase, chemotype, on THCA locus plant’s the at a for determine synthases: encodes which of postulated types been al., different et had Laverty loci 2018; genetic al., Different et the (Grassa 2018). et conclusive of challenging Toth al., a nature production made 2006; et have phytocannabinoid complex al., McKernan heterozygosity controlling two the et 2019; high However, loci and last Pacifico the regions the 2005; 2016). complexity of Hammond, in al., low analysis elements, and et detail transposable Welling Meijer some many 2015; de quite its al., 2003; with in et 2009b, THC/THCA studied Weiblen 2009a, been the 2020; al., have al., is et chemotypes Meijer marijuana different (de the and decades chemotypes. of hemp of genetics populations between categories underlying genetic broader distinction The distinct considered to critical be refer the also always can necessarily As they not content, do categories. marijuana and phylogenetic hemp or terms the Hence, 2018). D /B D Cannabis d ejre l,20;Tt ta. 00 eln ta. 06.Additionally, 2016). al., et Welling 2020; al., et Toth 2003; al., et Meijer (de ) Cannabis D ait ‘BR’,wihi hmtp I epmrjaahybrid hemp-marijuana III chemotype a is which (‘CBDRx’), variety o h BAsnhs Fgr )d ejre l,20) Depending 2003). al., et Meijer 4)(de (Figure synthase CBDA the for eoe hc eido hr-edsqecn aa(a ae et Bakel (van data sequencing short-read on relied which genome, 0 r rdce ob soitdwt hmtp V where IV, chemotype with associated be to predicted are ) 8 T /B T ,ceoyeI (B II chemotype ), Cannabis genome T /B D T ) Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. olan 09 eaa 07 olsr ta. 08,hnegnrtn ie ihseicphytocannabinoid research. specific with further lines in generating produced interest hence of terpenes 2018), be of al., variants might et profiles Pollastro manifold 2017; the Deiana, as 2019; well Bohlmann, as CBC(A) varieties and of in CBG(A) kinds these like of phytocannabinoids farming Other the countries. even many currently in as restricted V), heavily (chemotype is phytocannabinoids overall for % used 0 have be could (Onofri varieties addition, synthase compositions Natural therefore, CBDA In phytocannabinoid 2018). generated will, direction. altered artificially al., this This to or et in linked occurring (Zirpel breeding mass. naturally been 2018). THCA. by-products targeted Hence, flower have of of al., and 2015). dry amounts amount et no al., exists of the or et CBDA genes Zirpel % alter low synthase, synthase very 20 can THCA 2020; only in mutations a to al., produce variation of point 15 does generation et absence that that of the the (Toth show synthase range in be CBDA experiments by-product even the a to since a of (Aizpurua- going in say, identification as to is limit CBD require difficult goal THCA of THC is breeding levels achieve produce legal important to high synthases the one possible produce Hence, is above still this slightly 2020). which Whether chemotype al., levels uncertainties. lines grow and et THCA/THC zero-THC to problems Toth have regulatory of farmers 2016; creates often al., for THC et residual plants difficult of Olaizola it III presence make targeted the type future world because varieties, Especially for the V important across and be IV restrictions will III, chemotypes Tight synthase. different THCA the approaches. functional underlying breeding a is genetics express production exact CBDA not the if do Understanding that, plants problem if the even in by-product, observed results a potentially ratios as Cannabis This 4). to increases 2015). (Figure also similar al., THCA CBGA is et increased, relatively Weiblen molecule, This 2020; a precursor al., have 2018). same et synthase mass, (Toth al., the CBDA flower et process and dry (Zirpel and THCA of 20:1 5) The % Figure itself. vitro 0.3 %, B synthase In (83.85 above many CBDA similarity Moreover, of the sequence levels of 2020). high by-product al., THCA a et B have Toth extent functional levels, 2020; a some CBDA of al., absence higher et the McKernan with despite 2019; those al., especially et plants, (Cascini loci 2020). sequenced B both cultivar al., al., contain each for et et for assays McKernan (Vergara different 2019; throughput composition be al., High might and et Laverty (pseudo)genes level synthase 2018; phytocannabinoid of al., in number et CBDA involved the (Grassa of likely, variation be most number might Copy and gene. genes 2019) though. single different there, synthase a end its THCA of not with isoforms does and synthases simple “B” phytocannabinoid be of locus complexity to a aforementioned The assumed to the previously down was Hence, comes what hemp from unusual. and different very marijuana very true, between look if might difference alleles the is, variation where constitution, structural genomic large This 2011). al., Cannabis tde aesonta h BAsnhs rdcdCD n HAa ogl ai of ratio a roughly at THCA and CBDA produced synthase CBDA the that shown have studies aite ihvr ihCDlvl a hsb trs feceiglglTCthresholds. THC legal exceeding of risk at be thus may levels CBD high very with varieties Cannabis oesaeicesnl oigit ou ntemdclrsac ed rvee nBohand Booth in (reviewed fields research medical the in focus into coming increasingly are flowers aite sdfrfir rse rdcincudb eetvl rdadgntpdto genotyped and bred selectively be could production seed or fibre for used varieties T n B and T D lee(ohe l,22) hsrsda HAi rbbya es to least at probably is THCA residual This 2020). al., et (Toth allele akr aebe eeoe n hwta aypat actually plants many that show and developed been have markers 9 nplanta in nhg-B epvreisa well as varieties hemp high-CBD in nvitro In D /B D Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eoewsdrvdfo eaeidvda Gas ta. 08,tesz fteY()crmsm was chromosome (*) Y the of CBDRx size The the chromosome 2020). 2018), Y al., al., the et calculated et for McKernan 2020. pairs, (Grassa annotation 2020; al., base individual al., Gene et million female et McKernan 2020). (Prentout per from a present approximated al., genes from are et of derived genes uniprot number was (Hao but from the genome RIdeogram available, acquired of using readily was ratio ideogram sequence not the the is an 92 THCAS, shows as to functional (a) plotted 82 a in from and contain ranges density not (black) sequences Gene does exon synthase other genome the THCA single (Q8GTB6). CBDRx amongst and one The similarity CBDA non- by while Functional (c). similarity, encoded appear % sequence (orange). are protein copies retrotransposons them synthases % repeat other with 83.86 The terminal associated share the CBCA long reads). data while by a raw (b). expression surrounded black), unique unique Mb sequence: and browser, have (*, coding 31.5 genome pseudogenes, synthase full and including NBCI CBDA-like a different sequences, (arrows, 24.5 have a the All to between between and (grey). appear in 7 synthase functional gaps genes chromosome CBDA contains synthase on assembly cannabinoid the (green the with region Three synthase, 7 since regions a clear, yellow boxes). chromosome not 3, to (grey on is and cassettes mapped located arrangement 2 chromosomal synthases and (1, exact cassettes cannabinoid identified The different of been Three locus multiple have (a). main (NCBI)) and stripes) numbering the synthase chromosome with CBDA revised chromosomes, box, for synthase, sex genome al., CBCA of reference et encoding (Grassa pair the ‘CBDRx’ genes is cultivar hybrid the which hemp-marijuana 2018), of the in structure copies pseudogene and cannabinoid-synthase-like location of analysis 5: Figure eei oaino ee noigcnaiodsnhssin synthases cannabinoid encoding genes of location Genetic anbssativa Cannabis 10 h eoehs9piso uooe n one and autosomes of pairs 9 has genome The . Cannabis . Preliminary Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. lnua rcoe ihagooeha-iesrcue(iue7.Ti edi omdb nenlarged an by formed is head This 7). (Figure structure head-like from secreted globose are a metabolites secondary stored with not other are trichomes with of and along secreted glandular site Phytocannabinoids be stresses main to compartments. have abiotic the they cellular concentrations, are and within higher trichomes in biotic cytotoxic glandular are from phytocannabinoids However, Because 1981). them 1976). Mahlberg, protect Kaufman, and and (Furr which Dayanandan synthesis trichomes phytocannabinoid 2016; multicellular al., or et 2020). bulbous (Andre uni- al., with 1973), hair-like et Mahlberg, (Livingston and active trichomes: (Hammond trichomes less trichomes Glandular metabolically bulbous bracts. and being stalked those trichomes cover sessile, that perigonal cells into trichomes the categorized epidermal glandular on be in has can produced specifically and more predominantly flowers, brush-like are female is terpenes of stigma bracts and phytocannabinoids The interesting styles. commercially Leme filamentous The 1914; two (Reed, are is ovary projections sometimes the hair-like bract perianth into of perigonal inconspicuous elongated top the 2020; this the Between al., that At et flower noting 2020). flower. (Leme the worth female ovary the of is of the of outside It 2020; structure embraces the part al., the tightly 2019). a et which in (Leme al., strictly mentioned perianth bract hyaline et not not a and Spitzer-Rimon is is membranous bract 1914; it it a perigonal Reed, that such, is The agree As carpel bract. studies the perigonal morphological 2019). and leaflike but green al., sepal, 2020; a a et al., within as Spitzer-Rimon et enclosed described is (Leme also flower b) sometimes female male and the is individual 6a hand, an other (Figure Further, the organs absent. On reproductive completely female are 2019). no petals al., and while et stamens, sepals, Spitzer-Rimon free five five of contains perianth flower a has and 2014). (Renner, pearance In individual individuals. same separate the on Cannabis on develop develop flowers flowers male female and and female stamens male only plants, plants develop dioecious monoecious that described flowers In 15 in unisexual as some have contrast, However 2014). and contain, (Renner, dioecious 2014). flowers or (Renner, carpels Most flowers monoecious or bisexual are 2007). termed species plant therefore Melzer, flowering are of and and % stamens, Theissen and different 2011; carpels between Endress, substantially both (Endress, varies 2020; above, plants organs (Becker, flowering floral ovary the of the of typical species morphology to a and stigma of arrangement, the number, the whorl of the filaments connects Notably, tip central stalk-like style The and 2005). reproductive the The develop. fourth Fletcher, ovules of male and the which pollen. top the inside Krizek in the ovary on are 1992; develop receives an grow contain They stigma, carpels anthers that Finally, the organs The whorl. reproductive carpel, production. floral the filament. to are pollen third a coloured Carpels of and the often flower. site anther in and the an located whorl non-reproductive are of typically the second and composed constitute are the and are Stamens in perianth and outermost are the organs flower. the termed Petals in a are are sepals of appearance. Sepals with part in together 2005). leaflike Petals Fletcher, and and pollinators. whorls: attract green Krizek concentric 1992; in usually organized (Endress, and are carpels which whorl and types, organ stamens compounds different petals, four active of sepals, consists pharmacologically flower of angiosperm typical important. The production of especially morphology of therefore the is site Understanding genetics main developmental 2019). their the al., et are (Spitzer-Rimon they most (phytocannabinoids) characteristic the because the of While interest one 2005). Fletcher, represent particular and which the (Krizek planet (angiosperms), of this plants on shape flowering organisms of of in groups structure diverse morphology and reproductive successful the and is development flower Flower The topic: hairy A 4. spiaiydocos(oien ta. 04.Temale The 2004). al., et (Moliterni dioecious primarily is Cannabis efi fe sda yblfrtewoeplant, whole the for symbol a as used often is leaf . otlkl,teemmrnu tutrsaehmlgu ospl Lm tal., et (Leme sepals to homologous are structures membranous these likely, Most Cannabis oeso scniee isn si sntvsbefrom visible not is it as missing considered is or flowers 11 tal. et 00 Fgr cadd). and 6c (Figure 2020) , Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis lnsas aenon-glandular have also plants oe sgenylo nap- in green-yellow is flower Cannabis eaeflwr r of are flowers female Cannabis oesand flowers Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eerh lnua rcoe lodvlpo aeflwr Lm ta. 00,abi tlwrdensity lower at development albeit the 2020), restrict al., factors et genetic inflorescence which (Leme Understanding flowers their male within phytocannabinoids. further on trichomes for less challenge develop with glandular a also probably remains produce dimorphism trichomes and sexual plants Glandular this female of underpinnings predominantly research. genetic why the Illuminating clear structures. not of is 2020). synthesis It al., the et in (Livingston involved trichomes genes (pre-)stalked expression of and with trichomes, levels sessile, glandular floral expression bulbous, in of molecules between high analysis precursor differences Transcriptome confirmed respective their 2020). (‘Finola’) a and contain al., hemp terpenes and et al., phytocannabinoids, trichomes CBD (Livingston pre-stalked et different a trichomes from (Livingston found by sessile developing of profiles be true distinguished trichomes be to terpene from be seem often distinct and trichomes can profile phytocannabinoid and Stalked and the terpene structures as (Kim 1978). epidermis above well these al., inflorescences elevated as et Additionally, the Turner female numbers being 2020; on on cell 2020). head found autofluorescence, directly al., Mahlberg, the of mainly sessile, and et with levels are (Kim Livingston be stalked which cells 1991; or trichomes), can secretory pre-stalked Mahlberg, stalked of head layer or and metabolites The a (pre-stalked trichomes), secondary is epidermis (sessile secreted head 2020). leaves the the vegetative al., of encapsulates on base et that the Livingston culticule At a 1991; 1973). by Mahlberg, surrounded and is (Hammond which style. cavity sty, secretory stigma; stg, perianth; p., ovary; ov, sepal; s, filament; fi, bract; of structure female 6: Figure Cannabis aueflwr of flowers Mature Cannabis oescnito w apl nlsdb eioa rc c.Shmtcdpcino the of depiction Schematic (c). bract perigonal a by enclosed carpels two of consist flowers aeflwr()adfml oe d.Tebr=1m.a,ate;b perigonal b, anther; an, mm. 1 = bar The (d). flower female and (b) flower male anbssativa Cannabis . Male 12 Cannabis oeshv easadsaes()while (a) stamens and sepals have flowers Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ntemjrt ffemale of majority the on 7: Figure hoooa opeet hyaeetmtdt opie65%( hoooe n . Xchromosome) (X % 6.1 of and chromosomes chromosome) (Y sex % The 6.5 comprise 1998). to estimated al., are et they (Sakamoto complement, 2016). chromosomal cytometry (Charlesworth, flow identified female been by of have Mbp chromosomes size sex genome which diploid 2004). in The al., plants et flowering (Moliterni the male pair and among chromosomes chromosome case XX sex rare with XY homogametic a an are with plants Female heterogametic are chromosomes. plants sex of pair one and autosomes of determination dioecy The sex in of determination genetics Sex The sexes: 5.1. the of battle The 5. valuable a provide would production. development phytocannabinoid flower of during increase inflorescences of an female White majority for to resource the (h). largely trichomes trichomes while glandular sessile trichomes. (f), of stalked and trichomes non-glandular arrowheads: stalked red are trichomes; (g) glandular sessile flowers in arrowheads: 32’ covered white ‘Felina perigonal trichomes; is of The non-glandular bract (e) (d). arrows: the flower trichomes on glandular ‘Finola’ as found within well female trichomes leaves as a (“sugar”) trichomes non-glandular Subtending of both, (b). bract have trichomes do hair-like (c) inflorescence non-glandular an mainly have (a) leaves Vegetative ieettpso rcoe on trichomes of types Different Cannabis sgntclycnrle Fgr ) epi ili 2 0,wt iepisof pairs nine with 20), = (2n diploid is Hemp 2). (Figure controlled genetically is Cannabis Cannabis ln pdrie fteclias‘ioa af n Fln 2 g h). (g, 32’ ‘Felina and (a-f) ‘Finola’ cultivars the of epidermises plant lnsi siae ob 66Mp hto aepat1683 plant male a of that Mbp, 1636 be to estimated is plants anbssativa Cannabis 13 epvarieties. hemp Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis rcoe a efound be can Trichomes r h ags nthe in largest the are hsrepresents thus Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. sntivle nsxdtriainbtecdsgnsrqie o aefriiy uhta Ofle are in flies genes XO specific that chromosome such Y fertility, 2020). Likewise, al., male et for 2012). (McKernan required Zarkower, determination genes and encodes (Gamble in but sterile Cannabis applies In determination but model plants. male ratio sex male of autosome phenotypically in development as to involved the role X for not an dispensable a is if is play chromosome even Y not that, the note does that to chromosome important Y is consti- It the chromosome that in XXY female- determination evidence an and apply. sex have is female might in should This yielded determination humans progeny plant in the male 1944). as of diploid Davidson, prominent scarce. half a surprisingly and though and (Warmke is plants, female tution male determination tetraploid tetraploid no a sex produce but between of to cross hermaphrodites, mode a colchicine other Strikingly, a used the becomes 1944). or Davidson essentially having one chromosome and chromosome the Y Warmke Y the supporting the evidence model, of chromosomes. this Experimental absence autosome X to or In to of presence chromosome similar number 2012). the the X somehow Zarkower, lowering with the be ‘placeholder’, and sex, that would (Gamble the is This relevance determines view limited chromosomes alternative 1958). X An (Westergaard, sex: of sex the number 1998). (Gamble the determination determines al., sex determines chromosome the et are on Y ratio chromosome Sakamoto consequence Y the little 2012; a bearing of Zarkower, without chromosomes similar those X absence and is male, extra mode phenotypically or or always the autosomes presence almost with suggest of are the female, reports ‘mode’ chromosome Some where Y genetic a the 2016). mammals, carrying what al., humans other to et and Vergara as 2020; exists humans al., confusion to et Some (Kovalchuk is determination. determination sex sex in involved size of chromosomes circuits in sex molecular the discrepancies the sequencing the and and of assembly identification for accumulation on in chromosome explanation progress elements the in Despite One transposable difficulties be of explain to Prevalence 2020). genes to seems help the 2000). al., losses also of al., estimates. et gene might % et (Prentout substantial chromosome (Sakamoto 70 Y despite lost elements about the chromosome repetitive be autosomes, Y other to to and the similar estimated transposons of be been they size to have as large appears chromosomes future, relatively chromosome the Y X in the the detail on to on in interesting density counterpart especially gene chromosome be Whereas Y will Prentout It no determination. 2020). have alleles). sex al., X-hemizygous that to et for contribute alleles (Prentout son may chromosome size to region X father in X-specific the from Mbp the not analyse whereas 75 daughter, size, ca. to in father is Mb from chromosome) 30 chromosome Y ca. X the is al. the with chromosome) et on Y recombining region the not pseudo-autosomal with role. is the recombining (which a that still sequencing play revealed region genome both chromosomes the may between sex (i.e. chromosomes discrepancy the sex of the the analyses where assembling different Detailed chromosomes clear between in variations Y problems not the genomic as other and is Structural than well of X It larger from. as analyses cytometry coming Mb the plants cytometry is 2014). flow 47 Flow measurements of al., is cytometry the Mb). size flow et chromosome 47 However, and (Faux the Y = results the to Mb 1). 1636 similar that close 102.7 Table - indicate very is Mb be Supplementary 1998) (1683 This would al., 5, chromosome chromosome et X (Figure Mbp. (Sakamoto X above sequencing 109.4 the mentioned oversimplification), chromosome genome results correspond an Y by roughly certainly the estimates determined most those and as that is size, Assuming (which in 2014). pairs al., Mbp base et (Divashuk in genome length the to of length total the of loietfidc.50sxlne ee,ie lee htaeihrtdi e-ikdfsin(..only (e.g. fashion sex-linked a in inherited are that alleles i.e. genes, sex-linked 500 ca. identified also a elpa rtclrl nml ln eeomn,ee fntivle in involved not if even development, plant male in role critical a play well may Cannabis 14 u hta oatsm ai oe o sex for model ratio autosome to X an that but , Cannabis Cannabis lns(ameadDavidson, and (Warmke plants Drosophila Cannabis Cannabis o uhi nw about known is much not , Drosophila hsde o mean not does this , h chromosome Y the , aite yielded varieties oafide bona hr the where , Cannabis sex Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 05.As,mn ftesuidCcriaeeaemneiu n hsd o oss e chromosomes sex have possess may al., pathways not (Magall´on et genetic do 3) developmental thus similar (Figure and that family ago hypothesize monoecious Cucurbitaceae years we are Nevertheless, million analysed Cucurbitaceae 2015). 100 well studied al., than the et the (Boualem more in of hormonal separated many expression the lineages Also, sex Together, two 2015). for 1972). the observed Jaiswal, Cannabaceae, Pawe is and to acid 2019; what (Ram gibberellic al., plants to whereas et female similar 1979), (Li on Timiriazev, very flowers and are male (Chailakhyan effects of effect (Heslop-Harrison, formation feminizing treatment a the auxin expres- by has triggers sex repressed the entirely also be altering Cytokinin can of development 1956). capable flower male be Indeed, to shown plants. male been have the phytohormones Binder, controlling in other in and sion also involved ethylene, also (McDaniel is to is plants ethylene addition there that In male suggests and on therefore inhibitor, flowers valuable this in ethylene more Together, female expression much known 1970). of sex usually a Jaiswal, development are in and is way the Ram results Silver from that induces 2012; which progeny produced ethylene plants, 2015). the seeds of that dioecious (Small, ‘feminized’ all (Mohan female evidence the seeds Because plants female, self produced female 2016). be to conventionally on Merlin, will breeders than flowers and plant by male (Clarke selfed used of chromosomes a formation is sex such the XX treatment exclusively induce This with to offspring 1982). used be Sett, can and silver Ram in that expression established well sex determination is the sex consideration, genetic affection Beyond factors sex environmental species. for different and mechanism in Hormonal molecular differently ancestral manifests 5.3. an and a evolution share labile as relatively members during Cannabaceae is family in change mechanism all systems rapidly this determination that and that sex indication frequently but the as can determination, on taken systems data be available taken determination may Nevertheless, be sex whole 2014). may that al., This and et that 1991). 2020) (Bachtrog that Clark, al., mind and et in (Parker (Jin kept sex the be determines should also ratio it that autosome evidence closest to the additional of X as one the Interestingly, system which 2013). determination in al., sex a et system flowers (Yang with the family bisexual or, the of monoecy, in true of that In shifts state 2014), indicate relatives ancestral Several reconstructions the complex. (Renner, is state is 2013). dioecy, bisexual character likelihood, Cannabaceae ancestral al., are lesser and of which et Cannabaceae, (Yang family of the entire Cannabaceae in % occurred the in 85 whether in rare some see circuits. system conspicuously general, to molecular sexual are monoecious in interesting same the angiosperms in the be view, to to expression will expression of contrast back sex It point sex traced of evolutionary be degrees 2016). the an can different From al., cultivars for between et monoecious relevant and (Faux in cultivars loci chromosome maleness) monoecious X or genetic and (femaleness the dioecious some on between to least located distinction female the At be of conditions environmental to ratio different seem the between 2014). plants also i.e. al., but degrees, cultivars et between different differs to (Faux develops XY ‘maleness’ plant the one and flowers that ‘femaleness’ male indicating express chromosome, cultivars in Y ‘leaky’ monoecious 2016). dioecious no be the al., is in and can et time chromosomes system (Faux because flowering X determination time is two sex cultivars harvest This carry optimal monoecious cultivars an for 2). monoecious on of Genetically, whereas flowers (Figure determination plants, female the production female facilitating and fibre thus than male for synchronized, earlier develop more popular flower in cultivars particularly plants Monoecious determination are male sex varieties. varieties, and of plant dioecious same canonical study the the the to to addition complications in further add considerations To evolutionary and dioecy Monoecy, 5.2. Cannabis anbssativa Cannabis Cannabis Anwrh 00 ui,freape a edt h eeomn ffml oeson flowers female of development the to lead can example, for Auxin, . 2000) (Ainsworth, l oize l,21;Shlige l,22a.Ccriaeeaeol itnl related distantly only are Cucurbitaceae 2020a). al., et Schilling 2019; al., et kowicz . , uuu lupulus Humulus Cannabis Humulus a nXt uooertosxdtriainsse.However, system. determination sex ratio autosome to X an has Cannabis and cmo o) sdocoswt nX e determination sex XY an with dioecious is hop), (common Cannabis Fu ta. 04 auoae l,21) naddition, In 2016). al., et Razumova 2014; al., et (Faux 15 Cannabis a aesprtdsm 5mlinyasago years million 25 some separated have may a esae yevrnetlfcos It factors. environmental by shaped be can Cannabis oeiu aite exist, varieties monecious , Cannabis Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. alntscnb vr1h,teajsmn fflwrn iegnscnb datgos Consequently, advantageous. be can genes time passed. flowering have of photoperiods adjustment short-day the the of of 17h), characterisation number over comprehensive short-day a quantitative be a cultivate when can for As to induced daylengths adaptation 2014). order only al., local in is et enabled Langer flowering Therefore, rice which 2016; and and Li, genes, vegetative wheat and time like remains (Hill flowering crops latitudes staple in of of variation range plant, expansion wide natural worldwide a to Black- and at and attributed success cultivation (Gaudinier The be conditions crucial climatic 2018). partly been Floral local al., deter- have can efforts. to et genes major crops improvement time Schilling a of flowering crop 2020; adaptation is key and man, the and in facilitating breeding Alterations growth M¨uller, domestication, 2009). plant reproductive and crop for (Jung to to potential vegetative goal yield from major of shift minant 2016). a developmental Li, is the and represents time the Hill flowering transition temperature, 2010; ambient of al., factors clock, fine-tuning et circadian major (Fornara The pathway the the autonomous photoperiod, Among the the signals. and age, is environmental plant gibberellin angiosperms as is the phytohormone in well and are it time time (Gaudinier as Hence flowering flowering initiation mechanisms that 2012). controlling demonstrated floral timekeeping al., have their internal et species fine-tune by (Hall plant to controlled various occur mechanisms in set cannot Moreo- Analyses possess to 2020). pollination 2020). to concurrently, Blackman, Blackman, fail plants flower and may for not (Gaudinier plant beneficial do season evolutionarily the plants growing late female the as of and too such end male fertili- occurs species the reduced flowering dioecious at causing if in hit subsequently Conversely, ver, Premature conditions dispersers, dispersal. harsh initiation: the or seed before control floral pollinators deficient seed to spontaneous of and Mechanisms of absence 2017). rates consequences the al., negative sation with et the coincide given (Shim could evolved success flowering have reproductive flowering for of time essential time flowering is control of time importance Flowering developmental and evolutionary The and 6.1. initiation floral of network complex for the hints - everything is Timing mechanisms 6. determination sex researchers. the as well of as intricacies breeders sex molecular for both the insights main Studying as valuable plants. the provide well female certainly are as unpollinated will content in plants mechanism highest gene female expression is their sex of production chromosomes, and phytocannabinoid flowers determination as sex the beneficial, the Because very of environmental expression. study and detailed sex hormonal more of genetic, on a is phytocannabinoids, effect determination of significant source sex a although that, have in emerges expression influences picture sex understood. 2015). the influencing completely Small, summary, factors being 1957; In environmental from Heslop-Harrison, different far 1980; of is al., monoxide picture that et complex carbon (Freeman directions very ago or expression long different (Heslop-Harrison, availability a sex years by of nitrogen on yields cited 100 like period influence this as factors some initial Together, an 1912, environmental have an reported 1911, other to ((Tournois without was of flowers seem (i.e. lot It female also A only as length. 1923)). well conditions day (Schaffner, as day by 1957), male short develop affected under can also grown growth) is day plants expression dioecious sex that expression that already sex established of well intricacies is molecular the unravel to Cannabis model excellent in an determination as sex serve in and thus expression might sex relatives control their to co-opted been Cannabis Cannabis sasotdypat n oeigi ntae fdylnt sblw1 seblw,btit but below), (see h 14 below is length day if initiated is flowering and plant, short-day a is soeo h anaeso uuersac.Freape raigml trlt ol be would sterility male creating example, For research. future of areas main the of one is Cannabis oeigtm spriual eemndb h htpro.Udrlong-days Under photoperiod. the by determined particularly is time flowering Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis . Cannabis h iigo oe mrec spriual rca,bcueif because crucial, particularly is emergence flower of timing the , tnwlnso aiue(o xml nIeadweesummer where Ireland in example (for latitude of lines new at Cannabis oeigtm ahasi rca oteitgaino this of integration the to crucial is pathways time flowering 16 n h uubt.Mln uubr upi,and pumpkin, cucumber, Melon, Cucurbits. the and Cannabis Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. lxflwrn ientoki elcaatrsdwt eea ahasdsrbdicuigtevernalisation, the including described are pathways conducted several with been well-characterised have is time network flowering time of flowering controlling plex analyses network comprehensive regulatory which plant for long-day gene species the the research plant understand and model to the observations, Among primer al., those important of et an basis (Spitzer-Rimon as in molecular development serve time the flowering and may substantiate plants maturation to some model flower required in on for is photoperiod research required photoperiod- the Further were Furthermore, 2019). of photoperiods 2019). independently suggests study shorter al., occurs recent A others initiation et 2018). in floral (Small, (Salentijn exist time female cultivars late-flowering auto-flowering) flowering require that or or day-neutral for still as mid- exists known responsiveness (also early-, diversity environmental insensitive as Huge the underlying 2019). categorised al., loci generally in et and induction pathways (Salentijn floral genetic elucidation impacting stimuli the environmental undertaken, the determine been to efforts important While genes: in when genes candidate play time and flowering at plants are Model pathways non- 6.3. signalling under same flowering 2016). accelerate (Takeno, the days can whether long warranted. that under is detect stressors flower time observe eventually and flowering to individuals on conditions, interesting influence especially photoperiodic their be and inductive pathway would detailed autonomous it more the in addition, a and needed conditions, In age-related is photoperiodic trait. non-inductive the research this under of more for flower Clearly, analysis cultivars eventually length. individuals between day most variation in that the (2014) Given reduction Potter explore Furthermore, the greater to transition. after the particular floral week the and in faster one plants, area, the visible 3-5-week-old this short-day be in to flowering switching can of flowers induced Scully time and stated photoperiod the Borthwick flowering. short at induce age a (Lisson to plant of required h the are weeks 14 days two to short reported consecutive 9 many (1954) from how at is ranging question photoperiod photoperiod related therein). the A optimal cited days the for references of with variation and sequence reported, Cultivar-specific 2000 a been darkness. al., under has experiencing et eventually of induced flower by period is typically i.e. uninterrupted flowering will conditions in which minimum plants short-day induction a while in flower with that that faster each means observed occurs 1957)). This was flowering Heslop-Harrison, 2019). it conditions, by 1912 al., long-day as (cited et early (Salentijn 1912 (Tournois plant as short-day al., In photoperiod 2019). et the al., Cosentino by et 2008; influenced Salentijn 2012, 2012; al., al., et et initiation, conditions. (Amaducci floral prompt photoperiod temperature is 1944) and Nelson, including time 2012; climatic flowering signals local of environmental to understanding stage various adapted developmental better While the are a Additionally, and that quality. 2019) varieties fibre al., generate for et between to Salentijn implications interactions important more in The major (reviewed in production 2019). oil has complex fibre purpose al., harvest hemp are suiting et crop at quality as (Salentijn thus fibre the such yield growth and determines product, flower/seed stem time also enhanced flowering agricultural vegetative displaying time favouring main varieties flowering varieties the earlier (Figure flowering But are and beneficial flowers. later seeds highly with from or be terms, production flowers would general CBD the time or when flowering seeds controlling evident from factors are genetic reasons the The far of 1). so understanding know better a we , what - Cannabis Cannabis in control time Flowering 6.2. agriculture. modern into species crop a h oeta ob utial utproeco.Frvrulyalapiain of applications all virtually For crop. multipurpose sustainable a be to potential the has Cannabis rbdpi thaliana Arabidopsis . Cannabis n h hr-a plant short-day the and Cannabis 17 spriual estv ocagsi htpro (Hall photoperiod in changes to sensitive particularly is Arabidopsis rz sativa Oryza oba n h utfor hunt the and soybean , rc) In (rice). Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis Arabidopsis utvr,wiein while cultivars, ihphenotypes with safacultative a is Cannabis Cannabis h com- the , Cannabis have is Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. atradtermiiggnsaeotooost hs novdi oeigtm oto in control time flowering in involved those to orthologous are genes remaining the and factor the of levels for transcript alleles loss-of-function carry therein). that Individuals references and FLOWERING3 2018 EARLY al., et (Copley in the regulated is soybean, flowering In how about to related analysis. clues closely comparative important more provide for therefore, may applicable is, most and or Fabales the (Poales) the be rice to not belongs may that on crop - short-day effects rice monocot pleiotropic the these have or of to role demonstrated that the 2015). Given elucidating been al., of (Bl¨umel have et importance species time crop the flowering in emphasising are regulators of in further genes elucidated characteristics, regulators these be valuable key must Thus, agronomically thus these therein). and of references species, between Several and differ 2011 may in pathways al., flowering control the et time controlling (Watanabe flowering for cucurbits candidates and promising onion tomato, pea, GI 2006). al., et (Searle flowering 2002). the al., to binds directly gene, MADS-box another Importantly, gene identity gene al., et factor (Corbesier of growth expression reproductive the to vegetative gene repress from clock transition circadian the The induce to 2007). meristem apical shoot the to of the transcription pathway: activates the photoperiodic From which the (CO) CONSTANS of factor node central the in to signals transmit GIGANTEA-CONSTANS-FT subsequently Brassicaceae myriad photoreceptors The a The light angiosperms. have far-red in Phytochromes 2019). by exist al., 2020). Pr phytochromes et several to In al., (Legris phyE. reverts and to et large-scale phyA development then phytochromes: (Klose induce plant five Pfr possess and regulating reversion 2019). factors in al., thermal transcription roles et light-independent with activatedof (Legris by is interact light perception can or to red-light Pfr upon absorption response nucleus. and in in dark, the exist alterations the to Phytochromes in transcriptional translocates synthesised cryptochromes). is which and Pr Pfr (phytochromes forms. to photoreceptors (Pfr) the active and by control (Pr) light to inactive of coordinate integrator perception which main clock, the circadian the is the of and expression perception light the between cross-talk on depends pathway of pathway photoperiodic in previously, signals mentioned inductive As floral (Bl¨umel et of pathways integrators gibberellin key and the ( temperature of ambient One age, 2015). clock, al., circadian photoperiod, autonomous, FT , Arabidopsis CO ,tepoenpouto hc skona oie Trke l,2008). al., et (Turck florigen as known is which of product protein the ), and FT FLC SOC1 Cannabis FT SOC1 LEAFY, ou,flrgni rdcd ml oiepoenwihtaesvateple rmteleaves the from phloem the via travels which protein mobile small a produced, is florigen locus, sa olw:teatv f omo hApooe h tblt ftencertranscription nuclear the of stability the promotes phyA of form Pfr active the follows: as is Arabidopsis emt ecnevdi oeigptwy nmn rp,sc swet aly grapevine, barley, wheat, as such crops, many in pathways flowering in conserved be to seem lorepresses also E sidrcl peuae by upregulated indirectly is ee n the and genes samjrflrlitgao fdffrn oeigptwy in pathways flowering different of integrator floral major a is SOC1 saedct hr-a ln,tecmol sdmdl-telong-day the models- used commonly the plant, short-day eudicot, a is FT hspooigflwrn Lee l,20;Yoe l,2016). al., et Yoo 2008; al., et (Lee flowering promoting thus CO Cannabis ( LWRN OU C LOCUS FLOWERING Arabidopsis ee r rsn Fgr )(ue l,2013). al., et (Xu 8) (Figure present are genes ELF3 hsidrcl promoting indirectly thus Bascls Fgr ) lwrn iecnrli oba swl tde and studied well is soybean in control time Flowering 3). (Figure (Brassicales) rmtr n blocks and promoter, ( FT GI-CO-FT GIGANTEA ,wihi nipratpr ftecraincok(ue l,2017). al., et (Lu clock circadian the of part important an is which ), JUVENILE rncito ntelae n lcsflrgntasottu inhibiting thus transport florigen blocks and leaves the in transcription spriual estv oatrtosi h htpro n ssc the such as and photoperiod the in alterations to sensitive particularly is arnssm oedtie icsin h htproi flowering photoperiodic The discussion. detailed more some warrants FT Coe l,21) h rtse ntepooeidcpathway photoperiodic the in step first The 2017). al., et (Cao inligcsae rey h cino the of action the Briefly, cascade. signalling ) Arabidopsis ( GI J CO ( E1 J sas named also is lostedgaaino rncitoa ersosthat repressors transcriptional of degradation the allows ) eeaeivle nflwrn iecnrl(iue8) (Figure control time flowering in involved are gene ) i oie.SC,i un ciae h oa meristem floral the activates turn, in SOC1, florigen. via Cannabis to SOC1 18 ( FLC E4 FT hAadpy r ucinlytems important most the functionally are phyB and phyA xii htpro nestv oeiga higher as flowering insensitive photoperiod exhibit Sw ta. 07.TeMD-o transcription MADS-box The 2007). al., et (Sawa ,wihi novdi h enlzto pathway vernalization the in involved is which ), FT rncitoa ciainb O(ewrhet (Hepworth CO by activation transcriptional oee,tegn ucin n mechanisms and functions gene the However, . Pteile l,19;Smc ta. 2000). al., et Samach 1995; al., et (Putterill GmELF3 Cannabis Arabidopsis E1 ti rhlgu to orthologous is it , . salgm pcfi transcription specific legume a is is lcn max Glycine Arabidopsis LWRN OU T LOCUS FLOWERING Cannabis GI-CO-FT Rsls than (Rosales) o example, For . syen sa is (soybean) Cannabis Arabidopsis Arabidopsis Arabidopsis module . : Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aiu aiue,icuigtetois ihsvrlplmrhcstssgicnl soitdwt flowering with associated significantly sites polymorphic several with tropics, the including latitudes, the various in variation Natural for alleles in loss-of-function photoperiod-insensitivity associated carry which significantly plants the sites Soybean in the polymorphic 2019). variation several al., Natural with et GmGIa (Jiang soybean, 2012). variation in time al., variation flowering et with time Xia flowering 2017; for al., responsible et (Lu days hslast h ees fthe of release the to leads This conditions, 2014). al., long- et Under Zhai not 2012; al., flowering. et Xia photoperiod-insensitive 2017; infer mutated when down-regulates that genes GmELF3 the as conditions, well day as shown are soybean. in 8: Figure to E2 PhyA. FT as named (also GmFT5a , ee r rsn X ta. 03.Tu,teegnsmyrpeetsrn addtsfrelucidating for candidates strong represent may genes these Thus, 2013). al., et (Xu present are genes GmPHYA3 expression. noeve ftewrigmdlfrtepooeidcflwrn iepathway time flowering photoperiodic the for model working the of overview An GmELF3 hsdlyn oeigudrln-a odtos(aaaee l,21) ne short-day Under 2011). al., et (Watanabe conditions long-day under flowering delaying thus ) aallrpeettoso h ewr ne ogdycniin n hr-a conditions short-day and conditions long-day under network the of representations Parallel GmFT2a htcrm A Phytochrome GmGIa and sexpressed. is E1 sa rhlgof ortholog an is ) E GmPHYA2 and up-regulates Cannabis and GmFT5a E1 homologs J GmELF3 ee r epnil o h dpaiiyo oba ocliainat cultivation to soybean of adaptability the for responsible are genes upeso fthe of suppression . xii htpro nestv oeiga ihrtasrp eesof levels transcript higher as flowering insensitive photoperiod exhibit l fwihare which of all , GmFT4a GmGIa GmPHYA3 GI, represses and sa is achange-of-function (a 19 E3 GI GmFT and E1 ( ooo hc inhibits which homolog GmPhyA3 FT ypyial soitn ihthe with associating physically by GmPHYA2 ooos(a ta. 04 aafre al., et Samanfar 2014; al., et (Nan homologs ee,tu rmtn oeigudrshort under flowering promoting thus genes, GmFT and ) promote FT E4 eefml sa es partially least at is family gene htsprse oeig and flowering) suppresses that ( GmPhyA2 GmFT2a E1 xrsinadinhibit and expression btinterestingly (but r orthologous are ) E1 promoter. E1 , Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. sebysz f8618M Fgr a Gas ta. 08.I 09 h rtgnm-ieantto was annotation an genome-wide has first the and 2019, technology In Nanopore 2018). al., Oxford et using (Grassa this sequenced 5a) for available (Figure was made Mb individual) 876.148 with Finola of female PK, parallel size (a CBDRx, assembly in the genome sequencing, from CBDRx assemblies long-read The chromosome-level (Jiao wild Recently, four achieved a enabled be and 2020). has (FN), to VanBuren, mapping, repeat assemblies process physical and chromosome-level flanking assembly and Michael enabling regions genetic the genomics, 2017; the facilitates plant capturing Schneeberger, greatly for of sequencing and revolutionary capable long-read been Thus, are has Oxford which and duplications. and assembly, reads (PacBio) segmental Biosciences genome long and Pacific incomplete generate sequences as yet such can valuable sequencing, low sequencing, long-read) very repeat-rich, Nanopore (or a resolve molecule 2011). to single not al., generation led et could Third This Bakel time (van that 2011). Mb of 534 al., of sequencing et consisting short- short-read Bakel size when (van the assembly challenging regions 2011, draft particularly genome complexity in first are the the sequenced features reducing While These was collapse, cultivar, 2020). applied. assembly VanBuren, is and causes sequencing constitute Michael et contig read sequences 2012; (Claros one repetitive al., onto size that et elements assembly (Claros estimated repeat is genome it multiple it the breeding, Additionally, of inflating selective the for 2020). loci, duplications, of VanBuren, desirable distinct segmental ~70% and is as at diversity Michael misassembled incorporated genetic 2012; often resolve are this are al., to alleles While haplotypes difficult variable levels both been 2015). Highly heterozygosity whereby has al., assembly. High it genome et However, sequences. complicate Sawler DNA can 2016; as wheat. repetitive al., genome, and and of et the maize (XY) abundance (Lynch in like male the retained crops for and been other heterozygosity Mb The have in of high 818 1998). difference its that and al., sex-specific et to to Mb (Sakamoto the due relative 843 determination) for large sex be accounting on not to chromosome above is discussion Y predicted also larger is (see the size size with genome genome respectively, haploid plants The (XX) female Y). a and now (X is mosomes there with this, transcriptomics and and With The genomics eased available significantly. have currently restrictions the up reviewed. Here, legal picked be as analysis. will has however, for data available field years, readily recent the data novel In sequencing, of wealth crops. third-generation other of of advent that the of to applications relation industrial in and lagged agricultural, medicinal, the While read: long The in determined 7. be 2020). will al., et traits (Gage (NAM) complex populations Mapping how (MAGIC) Association model seen InterCross Nested the such Generation as be Advanced such traits in to Multiparent populations However, complex or remains mapping of multi-parental 2020). It phenotypes sophisticated al., of to 2009). formation et amount al., (Gage small et loci a Cannabis (Buckler contribute large-effect time all few flowering loci a rice, as several by as maize, flower- controlled such the species is species outcrossing elucidate time self-pollinating flowering to In in required 2015). ation still al., functions association are et gene (genome-wide analyses (Salentijn that approaches outcrossing functional in mapping considering and network gene worth mapping) such time is As ing loci it species. trait informative, across quantitative elucidating conserved be studies, for similarly can candidates be searches strong not represent gene may may in candidate genes sensitivity though these photoperiod Thus, However, for 2017). exists al., that et variation Lu natural 2019; the al., et (Jiang time Cannabis u aigisiainfo h ucsfleuiaino ope risi az a oiaethe motivate may maize in traits complex of elucidation successful the from inspiration taking but , Cannabis eoei ili 2=0,cnitn f9atsmsadapi fhtrmrhcsxchro- sex heteromorphic of pair a and autosomes 9 of consisting (2n=20), diploid is genome Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis eoe(a ta. 00 aet ta. 09 iuaie l,21) Misassembly 2018). al., et Pisupati 2019; al., et Laverty 2020; al., et (Gao genome C)ln Tbe1 Goe l,22;Gas ta. 08 aet ta. 2019). al., et Laverty 2018; al., et Grassa 2020; al., et (Gao 1) (Table line (CR) Cannabis utemr,a idpliae,docosspecies dioecious wind-pollinated, a as Furthermore, . eoe aigi h eeec eoeo h CIdtbs Jnisand (Jenkins database NCBI the on genome reference the it making genome, Cannabis eeisadgenomics and genetics sdocosadhsntbe ujc oitnebreeding intense to subject been not has and dioecious is Cannabis 20 eoe rmtemrjaaPrl uh(PK) Kush Purple marijuana the from genome, Cannabis Cannabis . r vast, are Sorghum Cannabis and Cannabis Cannabis Arabidopsis eoishas genomics sprimarily is genome vari- , Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 | The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 | This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. hr pgntclyrgltdha,dogto odaato r xlrdfrco mrvmn (Varotto improvement crop for explored under are are adaption epigenetically time cold are flowering or traits drought and those smart’ heat, extent expression ‘climate which regulated breeding sex of to epigenetically possibility like explore where the to traits open Niederhuth interesting may important 2020; This be al., economically will regulated. et Li it that (McKernan sequencing control, 2016; analysis Bisulfite Given environmental (Elhamamsy, that for 2017). strong available regulation find al., 2016). are gene studies et datasets B al., epigenetic sequencing Soorni These the understanding bisulfite et 2015; Two for on al., 2017). 2020). least useful et only al., al., Sawler is at based et et 2016; and segregating al., been Soorni methylation hemp et not have 2015; DNA (Lynch both populations, level detects There al., representing genome-wide distinct et samples, a form Sawler 2014). on ~400 often but 2016; the al., for marijuana into al., et data insight and et GBS (He providing GBS hemp (Lynch generated samples, species lines 2). have of marijuana a Table number that and within (Supplementary large studies varieties diversity a population-based marijuana genotype genetic three as to and well method structure as cost-effective population hemp and are efficient different data Hi-C an of and is multitude sequencing 2018). bisulfite a al., sequencing, for et amplicon available Zhang levels (GBS), taxonomic H. sequencing familial by 2015; and genotyping al., ordinal Furthermore, the et at Vergara phylogenies 2016; resolve 1988). al., to Herbon, used et and (Palmer often (Oh is species between genome conservation chloroplast sequence the and Hence organisation genome organisational in different investigate stability to both 2011; between the approach al., within genome et genomics relationships Davila comparative mitochondrial 2018; resolving a al., the taking et within Perhaps (Cole species exhibit variation 1988). plastid between can 2004; and mitochondria Herbon, and within (Knoop, angiosperm and nuclear conservation, both relationships Palmer sequence the organisation taxonomic intragenic genome of high deep in that variation this resolving rate high Despite than for The 1987). lower markers al., relationships. is molecular et phylogenetic (SupplementaryWolfe sequences useful resolving available them coding for assemblies making mitochondrial useful genome genomes, of genomes, particularly chloroplast organellar substitution are of nine nucleotide genomes sequences and of organellar includes mitochondrial The This seven available. 3). data are Table traits genomics there desirable additional which with of designed wealth of a be also could 2019). cultivars is al., There new et Cultivar- where (Tao have 2019). breeding, purposes al., that for production et adaptations targets Tao specific key phenotypic 2017; for al., niche be et could of (Montenegro genes representative conditions environmental specific often specific are to response genes within in cultivar-specific evolved observed Such diversity read characterising a defined. for sequence phenotypic of be resource NCBI wide invaluable development the an the the on be behind se- facilitate available The will basis short-read are sequences 2020). genetic genome Illumina al., project These et with the this (McKernan 2). sequenced in Table Project’ were generated (Supplementary Pan-Genome cultivars archive data ‘Cannabis Medicinal of (WGS) Genomics the Medicinal range sequencing on the diverse whole-genome available of a are part from assemblies as annota- genomes genome quencing gene three 40 including all genomes, assemblies while three genome database, was parental ( which NCBI The website cultivar, the these (JL) Genomics 2020). on Amongst Lion available al., Jamaican 1). are the et (Table from tion (McKernan completeness trio PacBio of father-mother-daughter using a levels chromosomes of varying sequenced the sequences enabling to genome CR, assembled the for been are 2020). map have physical al., genomes a wild et additional al., create While (Gao Eight a et to 1) 2020). (Grassa from Table used genomes al., (Supplementary was derived FN et assembled data and is (Gao PK Hi-C be (van Mb which CBDRx, 2019), to 1) 812.525 the variety, al., for (Table of CR et chromosomes size 2011 Laverty the The assembly resolve 2018; from respectively, genome to Mb genome generated a 2019). were 1009.67 achieving PK maps al., and PacBio, linkage draft with Mb et original sequenced 891.965 Laverty the also are 2011; was sizes upon al., assembly improvements (Laverty (male) significant et sequencing FN are Bakel single-molecule and PacBio which (female) with of PK sequenced both The were genomes 2019). FN al., and et PK The 2019). Orsburn, https://www.medicinalgenomics.com/jamaican-lion-data-release/ Cannabis Cannabis a-eoe hr eest nqet pcfi utvr could cultivars specific to unique sets gene where pan-genome, eu.I otat h hools eoei hrceie by characterized is genome chloroplast the contrast, In genus. 21 Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis utvr ol eisgtu for insightful be would cultivars lns iial oohrcrops other to similarly plants, pcfial,te will they Specifically, . .I diint these to addition In ). Cannabis T n B and D plant, loci, Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. R o hnesTP1 RV n RM,adtesrtnnrcpo 5-HT receptor serotonin but the CB2, THC, and and like TRPM8, Furthermore, CB1 and for PPAR TRPV2 system. affinity factor TRPV1, endocannabinoid low channels transcription the has ion the of meanwhile, phy-TRP PPAR activate components CBD, of target various also targets. action 2009). can of can of al., molecular CBD activity but et modes multiple the CB2 (Izzo The at modulate TRPA1 and can acting channel 2009). CB1 ion of al., of TRP capable et activity the (Izzo compounds endogenous the CB2 individual human modulates and the with THC CB1 of complex, receptors, discovery are cannabinoid the enzymes, tocannabinoids major to metabolic two ligands, led cannabinoid the THC endogenous and includes of which effects system, pharmacologic (endocannabinoid) cannabinoid the into investigations phyto- on Early details for 3 chapter (see 8.1. 2011) (Russo, phytocannabinoids potential other therapeutic though show genetics). CBD, also and non-psychoactive synthesis CBC the cannabinoid and and CBG research THC, as far, psychoactive such Thus the 2011). are (Russo, of well-studied terpenoids effects phyto- 200 medicinal than the of more into and applications (phytocannabinoids) cannabinoids Medical derived parts: Cannabis its of sum the cannabinoids than More now future assemblies for 8. genome resources chromosome-level the With data, transcriptome years. abundant recent and in annotations plentiful. genome-wide field are research as this well the in of as 2011). advances transcriptomes available, al., major The et Bakel been 2020). (van al., have available of et also illegalization recent Prentout are wide-spread two 2020; 2011 While Furthermore, in al., sex-linked sequenced et of 2019). cultivars expression (McKernan al., FN the plants et characterising and female on Zager PK and based 2020; of phytocannabi- chromosomes male al., transcriptome and sex in the the et terpene genes identifying in sequencing Livingston involved on on 2020; genes focused (Behr focused have of al., development have studies expression fibre et studies bast the under (Booth during profiling further grown biosynthesis as of Three well noid aim lines as 2017). the hemp 2016), with al., al., of trichomes, et et glandular transcriptome spatiotemporal Guerriero Liu on 2018; 2016; the based al., al., characterised functions et et have gene (Gao inferring stress studies drought for Other and as useful salinity well be will as patterns. data assemblies, for expression transcriptome genome This generated gene new was stages. of developmental annotation atlas’ various the at ‘transcriptome for (CN2), extensive cultivar Cannbio-2 an the 2019, of the sues in characterising notably, on most focused Perhaps Cannabis have that 2). studies et Table many Lieberman-Aiden plementary plants been 2013; in al., also have et investigated There (Burton heavily 2015). et expression al., being gene (Gao et currently of Xie NCBI regulation are 2009; epigenetic on Medicinal al., regulation understanding available the gene for available through is as for The genomes well and implications 2020). Lion cultivar al., its Jamaican et JL and (Rodriguez- (Santos the the genome data for for Hi-C the available organization with exists 3D of are The mapped dataset datasets (https://www.medicinalgenomics.com/jamaican-lion-data-release/). be Hi-C Hi-C website can Genomics Additional One nucleus the 2020). 2016). within al., genome al., the et of Granados organisation 3D the Lastly, 2020). al., et Cannabis Bac ta. 09.Ti td novdRAsqecn f7 ape ae rmmlil tis- multiple from taken samples 71 of RNA-sequencing involved study This 2019). al., et (Braich lnsrpeetarc oreo ilgclyatv opud,icuigmr hn10plant- 100 than more including compounds, active biologically of source rich a represent plants metabolites γ n RA,a ela h -rti ope eetr P5 n P1,the GPR18, and GPR55 receptors coupled G-protein the as well as TRPA1, and Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis a agl ousdo htcnaiod.Aogtee h most the these, Among phytocannabinoids. on focussed largely has a tne eoisrsac nteps,i scerta there that clear is it past, the in research genomics stunted has iCdt r ohueu o aiiaiggnm sebyas assembly genome facilitating for useful both are data Hi-C 22 Cannabis 1a Iz ta. 09.By 2009). al., et (Izzo rncitms(Sup- transcriptomes γ and Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eetr Cip ta. 01 oezke l,21;Znlt ta. 00.Ohrnon-cannabinoid Other 2010). serotonin al., et of anti- Zanelati modulation and/or 2018; and/or antidepressant al., system et have endocannabinoid Poleszak to the 2011; of al., appear et modulation CBC, (Crippa to receptors and due disorders. mood possibly CBD of effects, treatment THC, anxiety the for including phytocannabinoids single phytocannabinoids, to Several preferable (Johnson be patients also may cancer extracts in Whole-plant pain reduced significantly 2010). combination al., CBD/THC et extract dose- whole a bell-shaped a this with but nabiximols, a combined range, that was dose showed limited CBD very study when a overcome within only was analgesic occur response CBD the However, of effects well-established. 2018). anti-inflammatory been al., and have et management the Thiele pain to of 2018; for due effects al., phytocannabinoids likely et of effects, Pamplona benefits adverse 2017; trials The fewer al., clinical significantly that in et produced used reported (Devinsky also those required treatment than extract dose lower plant epilepsy al., lower doses CBD-rich on et at The patients (Berman studies in Epidiolex. specific clinical compounds frequency of that seizure observational purified reduced suggesting of single extracts rates, plant than meta-analysis in CBD-rich survival effective a compounds and more Furthermore, phytocannabinoid incidence minor be 2018). of seizure may content affected phytocannabinoids the treatment of epilepsy, of combinations extract model plant mouse high-CBD a applications. a In pharmaceutical of treatments. range existing non-CBD non-THC, of a of for addition beneficial the epilepsy, be In may neutrali- extracts and Exploiting whole-plant compounds, on 2009). Ulrich-Merzenich, of based in and solubility medicines effect (Wagner or events entourage bio-availability ‘the adverse enhanced the termed of targets, underlying sation been molecular mechanisms has multiple Proposed which of components, activation than 2011). non-cannabinoid effective (Russo, and more effect’ cannabinoid be whole entourage various may of between activity extracts increased synergism plant The the whole various 2011). that of (Russo, suggesting combinations phytocannabinoids compounds, purified that single show than activity studies biological some However, pounds. into research date, To of understanding 8.2. greater a 2011), (Russo, different effects of studied, therapeutic effective extensively contributions most produce various pharmacological been that to evidence have the growing terpenoids synergistically to the Due act these, 2011). Of (Russo, compounds effects 2018b). therapeutic many al., display et and (Pollastro stilbenes 2019). and al., amides et 2019). for (Freeman CBD sclerosis al., multiple of Additionally, et in form a spasticity (Freeman purified Sativex, and a anorexia and pain epilepsy, Epidiolex, of AIDS-associated of namely management forms in severe developed, of stimulation been chemotherapy-induced treatment also of appetite the have treatment use. for the medicines medicinal for plant-derived and for approved However, are vomiting, cannabinoids THC, synthetic and of approved forms nausea have synthetic countries nabilone, many and Dronabinol and compounds, plant-derived Fraguas-S´anchez Torres-Su´arez,of 2018; 2018; 2019; and al., al., et et (Atalay Poleszak effects anti-cancer (Whiting and well-established anxiolytic depressant, are phytocannabinoids 2015) of al., properties anticonvulsant et and antiemetic potential analgesic, The the have benefits. phytocannabinoids therapeutic diseases, many multiple provide in to involved pathways signalling various modulating Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis . Cannabis rwn vdnesget that suggests evidence Growing bsdmedicines. -based a eehne ycmiigdifferent combining by enhanced be may synergy Cannabis Cannabis- ldin k ta. 08.Snhtclypoue anbniscnmmcteeffects the mimic can cannabinoids produced Synthetically 2018). al., Sledzi´nski et ´ otismn o-anbni eaoie,icuigtreod,flvnis ligand flavonoids, terpenoids, including metabolites, non-cannabinoid many contains xrc ihi H rvddn eetfritatbecne an while pain, cancer intractable for benefit no provided THC in high extract ae eiie a rmrl ousdo igeioae anbni com- cannabinoid isolated single on focussed primarily has medicines based Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis 23 Cannabis eaoie a nac h niovlateffects anticonvulsant the enhance may metabolites eaoie lopoueat-namtr,anti- anti-inflammatory, produce also metabolites eaoie ilb eddt eeo h most the develop to needed be will metabolites Cannabis Cannabis xrc otiigTCadCDfrthe for CBD and THC containing extract xrc Gliye l,21) Another 2015). al., et (Gallily extract Cannabis iatv opud.Teanalgesic The compounds. bioactive Cannabis Cannabis opnnsdslygreater display components yeg odvlpnew develop to synergy xrcsmyb u to due be may extracts Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis bioactive include Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eeomn ftioe hmtpshsteptnilt rvd improved provide patients. many to benefit potential could in the which effect conditions, has entourage medical the chemotypes various of tailored knowledge of our Applying development applications. pharmaceutical various various whole of with for contributions observed effect the entourage assess the to underlying and mechanisms the elucidate to the needed is of various of potential importance medicinal the highlights full the different harnessing between to interactions the breeding Understanding conventional through chemotypes and these of Meijer the development of de of of The diversity effects 2011). 2003; high pharmacological Russo, the 2009a, the the 2009b; demonstrates into to al., al., investigation et terpenoids, et aid Meijer as could Meijer such (de which bio-actives, (de developed, non-cannabinoid active also CBC of were pharmacologically contributions and chemotypes various Cannabinoid-free CBG the 2005). CBD, Hammond, of Meijer THC, De proportions including breeding. the phytocannabinoids, through reflects achieved plant be can Vanhove given of 2006; a development al., The of by components. et production effects Toonen phytochemical therapeutic 2003; influence al., that The factors et genetic Meijer 1983; and de environmental al., 2018; the et Cannabis different al., Identifying Murari the (Janatov´a 2011). et 1998; of 3) al., Mediavilla, ratios humid- et Chapter relative and the (see the (Meier as genotype However, environment such the growth 2019). factors the by al., affected et of phytochem- Pavlovic are temperature the levels and on terpene rainfall factors and ity, genetic Phytocannabinoid and environmental conditions. of environmental the influence of the determine profile pharma- to ical synergistic needed is the research into More Research 2015). wide al., a et for Cannabis of material (Amaducci raw medicine effects provides including and cological products, applications, sustainable of produces range conditions, ecological various to adapts sativa Cannabis the of 8.3. applications. understanding of pharmaceutical greater various range for A a combinations effective other producing most and medicines. conditions, the terpenoids cannabinoid-based identify phytocannabinoids, medical different synthetic various of activities new of synergistic developing treatment than the approach for that, most killed suggest in Cannabis were findings naturally cells found cancer above those that to The 2019). found similar al., study ratios a et one at Notably, across (Namdar terpenoids THC, plant and 2019). that pure the phytocannabinoids al., reported than with et study effectively treated (Baram more Another when types proliferation effectively 2018). cell and al., cancer survival et cell of animal (Blasco-Benito cancer range and reduced compounds lines extracts cannabinoid plant cell other whole cancer of breast presence In the treatment. to cancer effective for most beneficial a the potentially models, be also may are effects terpenoids Synergistic and cannabinoids al., both et containing Piccinelli 2006; extracts al., Plant Cannabis- contains et which (Komiya 2011). oil, properties lemon anxiolytic Russo, and and 2015; anti-stress effects, displays antidepressant limonene exhibit of also quantities limonene, high terpenoid the as such compounds, Cannabis Cannabis ae ramn pinfrpyhpamclgclapplications. psychopharmacological for option treatment based ol i ntedvlpeto new of development the in aid could Cannabis eaoie nuneapatsteaetcpotential. therapeutic plant’s a influence metabolites aite rceoye,wt ayn htceia otnsmycnttt oeeffective more a constitute may contents phytochemical varying with chemotypes, or , varieties Rso 2019). (Russo, savraiemliproeco hc eursasml,lwiptcliaintechnique, cultivation low-input simple, a requires which crop multi-purpose versatile a is Cannabis Cannabis xrc rdcdehne nitmu ffcscmae oprfidTC osbydue possibly THC, purified to compared effects anti-tumour enhanced produced extract reigfrmedicine for breeding ln.Eitn tde hwta oa htcnaiodyed r eae to related are yields phytocannabinoid total that show studies Existing plant. eaoie ugssta aiso htcnaiod,treod n other and terpenoids phytocannabinoids, of ratios that suggests metabolites Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis hmtpscnann ihlvl fseicphytocannabinoids specific of levels high containing chemotypes tal et Cannabis eaoie npouigteaetceet.Frhrresearch Further effects. therapeutic producing in metabolites eoe hc a bit h edfrgntcengineering genetic for need the obviate may which genome, Cannabis eaoie odtrietems ffciecombinations effective most the determine to metabolites Cannabis produced . 24 utvr ihtioe aiso aiu metabolites. various of ratios tailored with cultivars ln.Rsac into Research plant. i-cie ean n ftekychallenges key the of one remains bio-actives Cannabis Cannabis hmtpshg nseicsingle specific in high chemotypes Cannabis eaoie r eedn on dependent are metabolites Cannabis Cannabis opnnsi eddto needed is components bsdteaisfor therapies -based Cannabis bsdmedicines -based Cannabis Cannabis extracts, othe to Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. xiiscro oiieceetas h moidcro fayhmceei ihdet h ihquantity high the to due hemp high although is that hempcrete however any noted of be carbon should embodied It the review). Although credentials, for S´aez-P´erez positive 2020 (see carbon al., solution. shiv exhibits et hemp design of low-impact report kg authors fast-growth a per 2017), its kgCO Kinnane, as and 1.5-2.1 the with between (Reilly proposed Hemp, and challenging of remains levels focus, increasingly sequestration traction. carbon in is greater of quantification increasingly advantages them specific is giving multi-purpose impact, are and environmental materials cycle fibres. considerable biobased reduce al., synthetic its of et to than and benefits (Carus processing aim alternatives environmental sector, of we produced building cost products. mass lower as the niche the a However, increasing remain of have generally, price is fibres more the plant demand twice materials though that almost even biobased are 2013), and and phased products Hemp, during industry, insulation products insulation buildings. hemp command of Today of to the waste, continue energy of and products operational use, wool share the enabled mineral market that and full point polymer were and synthetic price products almost industry Today Synthetic a construction 2020). development. with the of (Kinnane, demand However, redevelopment age high post-war materials. meet modern biobased to the this of developed during advantages diverged allows of industry insulation growth, agricultural example mould breathable the some to projects, and lead just retrofit can buildings, are which and old These transmission insulations renovation of synthetic the issues. modern-day walls for quality for do air allows the as popular and which it in structural trapping also structure present of pore are often instead open escape, is They water an Moisture generally by they site. moisture. characterised and capability on is of load-bearing hempcrete efficiencies have because these labour primarily of and new certain However, appearing densities, time are These higher sites. blocks enable Exhibiting infill hempcrete requirements. precast urban market. thermal Increasingly, walls in the meet applicability. these particularly wider on to of its thickness hempcrete, and enabling The of are is stability applicability products wall. structural temporary It innovative the widespread ensure between form the to poured strength. and limit is it mm, mechanical dimensions compact mix 300-600 low hemp: to wet from of relatively down The ranges 1:2:3 tamped has of typically structure. is weight hempcrete hempcrete timber by the concrete, load-bearing ratio and a a standard shuttering, in around to mixed cast contrast insulation. commonly typically wall is In therefore It and attic material. water. roof, composite binder: for a is used contrast, and in rolls Hempcrete, or panels in The formed properties. are thermal fibre, ( good product their binders, blanket for of wool recognised levels ( varying are include ( concretes products conductivity and standard both thermal bespoke noted, low typically a As are have cement. they hempcretes also as but range kg/m lime, density 390-670 wide often kg/m range a fibres, 38 the have and about in concretes shiv and encompass typically The 2004), respectively densities; al., These dry et product. (Collet-Foucault without their type concrete porous by thermo-formed blanket a density, distinguished are form low blankets are to a insulation binder and create a Hemp to with binder qualities. mixed added insulation those categories, an thermal are general two concrete with into Hemp composite grouped blankets: concrete be insulation may hemp reductively and but many, concrete 2016; are hemp hemp al., integrate et that 2012). fibres (Kinnane products al., characteristics plant Building that et acoustic materials the Shea and building 2019; both hygrothermal friendly al., thermal, Therefore environmentally et enables inherent biobased, concrete. have Reilly also developing low-impact to for applications, shown for suitable been fabric are aggregates have particles woody-core and mineral shiv the to rope the of alternative and in particles shiv biobased exploited Additionally, a traditionally applications. are construction fibres, building hemp for advantages of mechanical strength tensile high of varieties hemp Many houses: for Hemp 9. λ - /mK) oee,tercnutvt shge hntefre insulation former the than higher is conductivity their However, W/(m*K)). 1-2 = λ Cannabis 00 /(*) Cle-ocute l,20) hc otisu o9%hemp 90% to up contains which 2004), al., et (Collet-Foucault (m*K)) W/ =0.04 2 e go ln rw n auso nryfrpouto f00501 kgCO 0.085-0.19 of production for energy of values and grown plant of kg per Cannabis r becoswt utpeihrn ulte sbidn aeil The material. building as qualities inherent multiple with crops fibre are λ .2W(*) Wle n a´a 04 eaiet other to relative Pav´ıa, 2014) and (Walker W/(m*K)) 0.12 = sbidn material building as 25 3 o h epislto ‘ehihnr’ 2017). (‘Technichanvre’, hemp-insulation the for 3 ntecs ftehemp- the of case the in 2 Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 07.Ti rvdsa diinlln feiec hthm a ufi uuencea sustainable a as niche conditions. future agronomic a and al., fulfil climatic et of may (Tang range hemp levels wide that nitrogen a over low evidence cultivated at cotton of be even hemp, can line capacity, Model in that photosynthetic additional 2008). crop rate facilitating high an al., bioenergy photosynthesis soil a provides et and have the (Amaducci This status into to erosion 2017). nitrogen deep hemp soil leaf revealed penetrate prevent between kenaf taproots to and relationship large 2014). aggregates the the Midmore, soil comparing as and forms analysis health, energy (Bhattarai pesticide simultaneously disrupt soil efficient thus reduced to but promotes growth, an are weed used aeration, system and crops suppresses be root densities cultivated crop planting can hemp subsequently, break high hemp The of tolerate effective like to requirements an can crops hemp herbicide of of Break hemp and ability productivity. requirements potential crop, the pesticide promoting and combined input and cycles while the low nutrient pest income lower A offers generating with 2020). Hemp thus with but al., 2017). crop, sorghum 1998), et al., and Karus, switchgrass (B´ocsa (Adesina et and to increases alfalfa (Das similar yield and food yields with 10–20% complementing soybean high competing thus had produce for grown not hemp subsequently recorded thus after 2013). crops observations cycles, Styles, planted of similar rotation and yields wheat crop (Finnan improve Winter systems into to and cropping integrated reported production. bales, sustainable been readily towards briquettes, has be electricity contribute hemp fuel can therefore Moreover, or can it solid heat and crop Biogas, supplies annual either 2011). food an generate options: 2012, is al., to biofuel hemp et multiple used As Prade are be 2019; al., There could et and (Kraszkiewicz 2013). 2013). bioethanol properties Styles, Styles, combustion and and Finnan good (Finnan 2013; (15–20 mar- has Burke, commitment bioenergy and long-term biomass the (Finnan and explore Hemp costs bioenergy and establishment to diversify high land to Annual namely their farmers 2013). perennials, of for Styles, of miti- years) options and demands gas the appealing (Finnan the greenhouse be than willow without similar can and ket input) Miscanthus possesses hemp agrochemical/fertilizer crops and like bioenergy crops rape) low perennial bioenergy oilseed with the and yields to beet potential annual (sugar gation crops (high bioenergy efficient annual more traditional considerably is seeds Hemp and leaves 9). Hemp (Figure 2003). consumption for al., human potential et Further for (Citterio high 9). contaminants basis phytoremediation Figure a metal in the 1, employed heavy is provide (Figure by been there also implicated has paper such, hemp land and species, restore as textiles, this bioenergy, to and of in efforts exist, connotations long-term environmental and crop the short- to this both contributing for stored storing uses be Besides alternative 2013). to Styles, carbon materials, and (Finnan building efforts in biofuels sequestration and carbon carbon to crops 2018). contributing bioenergy al., for fuels, et potential fossil untapped (Rogelj from interest divest increasing to gaining efforts are consequential and warming of global Considering aspects Sustainability environment? the for Cannabis medicine a material. Also the 10. of proponents by underestimated often is this and used, often binders of farming Cannabis 26 sahg-ilig nulco,adhsmuch- has and crop, annual high-yielding, a is Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. n xrcinaeo ihcmeca neet oee,patbedn n utvto oewt their with come cultivation and breeding plant production However, their interest. therefore commercial and use high recreational of also are but medical extraction for and potential high have Phytocannabinoids tro without Phytocannabinoids Christine of prospects: of courtesy Future variety (i) A 11. available. also hemp (h). are into consumption (l) candy pressed human and for be (k) hearts can chocolate regular plant hemp as than well into the sustainable as dehulled of more (i), Schilling. fibre is be Remains tea (g) hemp like can printing while (e). products 3D seeds (b), hemp material for Hemp material hempcrete insulation hemp-plastic into or plastic. Composite processed printing (d) be (f). rope heating can into for (a) made pellets varieties be fibre can of husk (c) Hemp products. different 9: Figure ytei sn elcultures cell using synthesis rdcsmd rmhemp. from made Products Non-THC 27 Cannabis hm)cnb rcse noamliueof multitude a into processed be can (hemp) anbs nvi- In Cannabis: Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. hc nlddarneo itcadaitcsiui ssc,tesac o neiio hc a induce can which elicitor an for search the used, such, treatments As the of stimuli. any of abiotic to cultures and ongoing. response Flores-Sanchez suspension biotic remains by in in of production used found production phytocannabinoid range was were phytocannabinoid approach a stimulate phytocannabinoids an included Such to of a However,which try levels to fatal. leads to detectable be therein). often even order no culture references can in However, been suspension and and (2009) have a culture 2010 to and al. the addition al., of et current) their vitality et electric stress-inducing, the or (Weathers or in toxic success reduction compounds either (animal, are of organic biotic elicitors degrees either ions, many to varying be since medium (metal culture can with abiotic the Elicitors to previously or added metabolite. used extracts) be secondary can microbial desired which thereof a or mixture of plant a or production compounds transient in are the production These stimulate phytocannabinoid intervention. elicitors. be of of of to lack use unlikely form the the are is some overcome cultures may without which suspension cannabinoids of cell method of content such, One phytocannabinoid production As the the derived. or for were hormones biofactory cultures of effective from the absence an which derived are or from cultures) (which presence plants the suspension cultures original of the callus for irrespective of material culture, content starting during cannabinoid time the the constitute assessed often different (2008) five and al., to et number identical Pacifico a metabolically with by poses answers. described associated aims cell find study costs these microbial still A achieving high must or However, researchers the plant which processing. circumventing developing to downstream thus challenges of during cannabinoid, of product possibility desired desired the a a guarantees offers and produce purifying guidelines engineering exclusively practice Metabolic manufacturing which good lines satisfies product. that manner high-quality a a scale in 2006). product cannabinoids production Lee, of and commercial and yields to (James kinetics high productivity laboratory growth cell to from inconsistent as relation in cultures and In proliferating decline suspension use a than cell with rather of of associated clusters difficulty Weathers scale-up often cell 2020; increased the is heterogeneous al., to addition, form et In leading to (Moon culture, tend yield. of plants in cultures volumes field-grown large suspension to cells ability require relative Cell single their sometimes costs lose 2010). rates increasing often al., productivity therefore can several et low grown, cultures faces while instability, be purposes time, genetic to these over their biomass for compounds to cultures valuable due suspension produce Firstly, of cultures to use execution. suspension culture the cell induce successful However, to of to due hormones use 2011). barriers with used The al., supplemented commonly 2016). et medium most al., (Mustafa liquid the et in proliferation are (Santos cells cultures rates plant growth suspension dedifferentiated growing rapid cell involves available, relatively 2015). and culture scalability al., cell their plant et 10). to of Paul (Figure types well various 2010; are the as (Mountford, Of cannabinoids therapeutics scale produce other commercial to and avenue a promising immunomodulators on a antibodies, cultures be vaccines, might suspension this as cell Hence, used in be scopolamine produced and to already paclitaxel proteins as forward such transgenic going compounds or valuable production pharmacologically consistent including ensure metabolites, to Secondary cryopreserved be subsequently can value (Kirchhoff (Ogawa ways optimisation sorting high these cell medium al., of marker-based in via et fluorescent harvesting achieved optimised (Weathers as the be such medium allow techniques can surrounding using can yield their populations product it into and as secreted kinetics attention is growth or (Holland of that culture suspension lot manner of in Improvement a a cells 2010). attracted in (Tekoah within material has guidelines plant produced technology practice Cell high-quality manufacturing products This factors. of good 2015). environmental satisfy production al., can on the which et depend and for independent, highly tool seasonally can powerful efficient, time a profiles are and methods yield cultures phytocannabinoid and challenges own tal. et tal. et Cannabis Cannabis, 2012). , 00 Ullisch 2010; , aite h al i o hwaydtcal eeso htcnaiod tany at phytocannabinoids of levels detectable any show not did calli The . varieties h s of use the tal. et nvitro in 02 Vasilev 2012; , ipoesn ehiushsteptnilt lo h ytei of synthesis the allow to potential the has techniques bioprocessing tal. et 28 03 n yslcigfrhg-rdcn cell high-producing for selecting by and 2013) , Cannabis tal. et upnincultures suspension 02.Cl lines Cell 2012). , Cannabis . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. oata ikfrteacmlto ftedsrdpoutadi oecssfclttsissubsequent its facilitates cases some employed in is and used resin, product is or desired phase solvent the aqueous a of an of accumulation systems, consisting these the typically In for sec- phase, of sink 2013). non-aqueous production a al., a the have as et enhance while researchers act (Malik to where growth to species shown area cell of been one support range have is to a cultures toxicity two-phase in cell as avoid metabolites the such to ondary is Strategies methods and culture success. metabolites cell relative secondary of structures. development produce specialised the which in However, 50 sequestered species of are plant metabolites concentration many many a in why at observed reason they culture is when highly in phenomenon are cells CBGA hours feedback plant molecule 24 precursor to its after toxic and death THCA be plant. to both the to known outside toxic cavities are storage why into phytocannabinoids is compounds which that these concentrations, is enough high noting at worth accumulate effi- point using However, made other was . One Image Cannabis developed. in be both to for yet of has described production vitro protocols efficient in cultures (www.biorender.com). with the phytocannabinoids root Biorender of allow techniques, hairy production and used methodologies cultures large-scale commonly culture suspension cient, Cell most tissue scales. the and commercial are cell at proteins plant recombinant and in metabolites Developments 10: Figure Cannabis n oac elsseso utrs nuig10 ppoi-ieporme cell programmed apoptotic-like 100% inducing cultures, suspension cell tobacco and 29 Cannabis μ Srknaaa ta. 05.Ti negative This 2005). al., et (Sirikantaramas M lnsuetihmst compartmentalise to trichomes use plants Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. viaiiyo eoi eore iludutdyfcltt rgesi l hs ra,btw rdc that predict of we field but areas, complex those a all increasing in be The progress to time. facilitate flowering proven and undoubtedly determination will has sex resources of synthases control genomic environmental phytocannabinoid of and availability of genetic the diversity is as genetic research, come! and to evolution The more in is progress recent there The tuned, progress. Stay in work Conclusions: a remains 12. culture cell microbial or by from plant produced achieved either those in yields than cannabinoids less cannabinoid of 100-fold the the CBGA, approximately production However, as efficient be of well the to biosynthesis cannabinoids. as found complete complete pathway were of system the biosynthetic this biosynthesis this pathway hexanoyl-CoA described mevalonate the in heterologous native (2019) achieved the for a of be responsible al. engineering of can via introduction et yeast engineering in the Luo a metabolic analogues and by unnatural with which several hosts, with paper and CBDA non-native ease landmark and relative in THCA A the cannabinoids is to of organism. due methodology production model from yeast this the on produced demonstrate before focus be to achieved particular can attempted be have phytocannabinoids to studies while need Recent that will production. fact yield phytocannabinoid in the for improvements highlight 1.04 viable significant commercially at yields cultures, peak low be contents root These can cannabinoid hairy conditions, cultures culture. these root of Under hairy days NAA. auxin how the outlines of μ (2015) mg/ml 4 Kayser strain). with and the supplemented Farag on by depending from (43-98%, described developed frequency approach of by alternative degrees infection varying An to with a responsive albeit eight with be morphology, all epidermis to root Similarly, shown the hairy were responses. a piercing all morphological by and varying seedlings used with were intact although drug-type) of marijuana hypocotyl two the and with from inoculating established and surrounding syringe best the are into cultures secreted that possible then was was roots converted transgenic In which was these of from CBGA release half this THCA approximately and of vitro, uptake culture, 8.2% in CBGA of that THCA, demonstrating days to thus two molecule medium, after precursor the THCA the of to CBGA, control with transcriptional the supplemented the express under medium to synthase, transformed were THCA virus which production, cultures mosaic its root artemisinin hairy for tobacco responsible 2014), from suspension enzyme produced al., cell been than et previously use. commonly has (Jiao of less THCA producing difficulty isoflavonoids albeit of increased 2014), 2015), their means al., to al., et a (Wawrosch due as et phytochemicals. lignans cultures attention and same (Gai attracted 2014) the Srivastava, flavonoids already produce and This as have also (Patra cultures can such 2011). and cultured root metabolites Tian, derived easily hairy were and secondary for cultures, be they (Ono codes can suspension which hormones which which from cell plant networks T-DNA organ Like of mother as root the regulation known extensive to DNA and of identical development of production segment the the a in affecting with introducing results genes tissues by an of plant genome such number of plant’s knowledge a infection the al., our the modify et by of can Rudrappa generated best which are 2013; the cultures al., to root et in although Hairy attempted Malik 2003), sus- been 2007; cell Lin, yet plant Abdullah, and not both Wu and has in 2019; approach (Chiang yield al., cultures metabolite et Syk culture increase lowska-Baranek 2004; greatly root to hairy shown and been pension have systems Two-phase extraction. / r egtfrTC,1.63 THCA, for weight dry g/g Cannabis leta o levels. low at albeit rtclfrtepouto fhiyro utrshsaraybe ecie hc shows which described been already has cultures root hairy of production the for protocol a , 5 rmtr(iiatrmse l,20) hnteehiyroswr utrdi liquid in cultured were roots hairy these When 2004). al., et (Sirikantaramas promoter 35S Cannabis Cannabis alsclue ihu h s of use the without cultures callus .rhizogenes A. eerhhsbe eakbe n a eeldectn hlegsahead: challenges exciting revealed has and remarkable, been has research μ / r egtfrCG n 1.67 and CBGA for weight dry g/g Cannabis Whye l,21) ievreisof varieties Five 2013). al., et (Wahby . 30 .rhizogenes A. .rhizogenes A. μ goatru rhizogenes Agrobacterium / r egtfrCD fe 28 after CBDA for weight dry g/g ygoigte nB medium B5 in them growing by Cannabis Cannabis tan sdcudinduce could used strains nvitro in trehemp-type (three lns ssuch, As plants. r genetically are , Cannabis .rhizogenes A. cauliflower species a , genes , Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. dsn,I,Bomk . hra . n hhai .(00 eiwo h urn tt fknowledge of States. state United current the the in hemp on of review utilities A and (2020) practices A. health Shahbazi, soil agronomic and conditions, H., growing Sharma, of A., Bhowmik, I., Adesina, Bibliography grateful are and Institute, Earth UCD the of initiative initiative. strategic this a through during HempHub, support patience of general their childcare manuscript. for members for this for are Schilling Schmidt writing authors Theodor with Andreas All and helped and Jonathan substantially Schilling, to This Christine and Melzer, times. and pandemic, Peter unusual the Council and those during Research Beate Irish support to general the grateful by and EPSPG/2017/376). are supported no.: SS are (Grant and scheme ASP RM partnership and Scholar- enterprise Postgraduate EOR Greenlights Council an 201908300031). Research and via Chinese Medicines no. Council a Greenlight CSC by Scholar- Research supported Postgraduate No: by is Irish (Grant Ireland supported JS ship the of is GOIPG/2019/1987). Government CAD of No: Agency EPSPD/2019/220). (Grant Scholarship Protection ship Council-Environmental No.: Postdoctoral (Grant Research a Scheme Irish Partnership by an Enterprise support the under for Medicines grateful is SS swiss multipurpose a construct to treasure Acknowledgements tools. this specialised on highly capitalise of we series that a of important not diversity is and they It morphological knife, cultivars income. CBD explore. and of specialized to source Even genetic of beginning second yields farfetched. the a high too with summary, varieties the not production the fibre of In provide fibre seems as large to traits on content able task, harmonise focusing e.g. CBD be easy that farmers of high not provide an ideotypes with production may may be crop cultivars inflorescence the However, hypothetical not design dense those to will a unclear. if develop This be currently nevertheless will is sequestration. do challenge traits that carbon different major for of one of control important Thus, potential genetic those sustainability such. with full relevance as the crop, used medicinal multipurpose is a it is if of it intricacies that physiological be in and will Unusual developmental studies the phenotyping understand and to genetics important molecular morphological, equally detailed including analyses, experimental iue1:Tbe1-EcladPFattached PDF and Excel - 1 Table 11: Figure 31 Cannabis satesr rv htw r only are we that trove treasure a is Cannabis Cannabis a nyb fulfilled be only can . Agriculture . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ´ ca . n au,M 19)Tecliaino ep oay aite,cliainadharvesting, and cultivation varieties, botany, hemp: of cultivation The California. (1998) CA95473, Sebastopol, M. Hemptech, Karus, and B´ocsa, I., drug botanical a Arabidopsis? versus cannabinoid pure cancer. Bl a breast of of models action preclinical al. Antitumor et Garc´ıa-Taboada, in effect”: E., C., preparation “entourage Andradas, the I., Tundidor, Appraising M., subtropics. (2018) Caro-Villalobos, the M., in Seijo-Vila, planting yield S., L) fibre Blasco-Benito, sativa and (Cannabis responses, hemp physiological industrial growth, of crop Effect Bioresour suppression, (2014) weed D.J. on Midmore, density and ESI-LC/MS P., Cannabis. new Surya in A J.H., (2018) phytocannabinoids al. Bhattarai, of et T., profiling Shlomi, metabolic M., wall. comprehensive Benami, D., the for Mukha, approach behind G.M., peeks Lewitus, K., hypocotyl Futoran, P., hemp Berman, The development: fiber bast carpel. and and the heterogeneity growth of origin S., The Legay, the (2019) M., on al. Behr, update et molecular M., A Benami, (2020) E., A. draft agents. Becker, Besser, antitumor The B., as (2011) Yellin, extracts al. P., Cannabis et Berman, of T.R., Sex complexity E., Hughes, Peled, (2014) A.G., L., al. Sharpe, Baram, sativa. C.M., et Cannabis Tallon, T.-L., of A.G., transcriptome Cote, Ashman, and J.M., S.P., genome Stout, Otto, H., It? M., Bakel, Doing van Kirkpatrick, of Ways C.L., Many Peichel, So Why J.E., Determination: Mank, Pro- Anti-Inflammatory D., and Bachtrog, Antioxidative (2019) E. Cannabidiol. Skrzydlewska, of non-Cannabis and perties in Prunus I., genes Jarocka-Karpowicz, (2019) synthase S., cannabinoid al. Atalay, of et Distribution (2019) K., J. Gasic, Bouie, prospects. Z.S., and organisms. and D.F., achievements Gao, Orellana, sequencing: I., N., genome Aryal, novo Eduardo, and de E., Thousand after the Dirlewanger, applications of and V., genetics Plant Decroocq, The sativa: M.J., Cannabis Aranzana, (2016) G. Guerriero, techniques cultivation and Molecules. Key One J.-F., (2015) al. Hausman, et C.M., G., Andre, Testa, China. H., and Guo, Europe Q., in Zhang, hemp F.H., for Liu, D., phenology Scordia, hemp S., post-emergent across Amaducci, Modelling evaluation. (2008) production and G. Theory biomass Venturi, L.): and L.) sativa G., Sativa Bellocchi, (Cannabis M., (Cannabis Colauzzi, hemp S., for Amaducci, decisions strategic Evaluation (2012) for al. sites. et model European T.J., Stomph, Different phenological K., Pahkala, from a S.L., Plants Cosentino, of G., sativa Bellocchi, Cannabis M., Colauzzi, of S., Growth Amaducci, the during Content Terpene and Plants. Chemotypes. Cannabinoid Dioecious the of of Biology tion Molecular U., Soydaner, The O., Play: Aizpurua-Olaizola, to Out Come Girls and Bot Boys (2000) C. Ainsworth, 10. ml . al,N,adJn,C 21)Foeigtm euaini rp-htddw er from learn we did crops-what in regulation time Flowering (2015) C. Jung, and N., Dally, M., umel, ¨ 6 211–221. 86: . :1–1. 2: . anbsRes Cannabis J urOi Biotechnol Opin Curr a Prod Nat J n rp Prod Crops Ind rn ln Sci Plant Front iz o´ ,E,Mtk,V,Dbe,PI,Humn .. ta.(06 tdigsecondary Studying (2016) al. et J.F., Hausman, P.I., Dobrev, Ziˇzkov´a, V., Motyka, E., ˇ Antioxidants 9 324–331. 79: . :8. 1: . 7 100–110. 37: . 7. . n rp Prod Crops Ind 2 121–129. 32: . 9. . Ozt ¨ r,E,Shbn,D,Smi,Y,Nvro . ta.(06 Evolu- (2016) al. et P., Navarro, Y., Simsir, D., Schibano, E., urk, ¨ u Agron J Eur eoeBiol Genome 8 2–16. 68: . LSBiol PLoS ice Pharmacol Biochem 32 Oncotarget 8 90–102. 28: . 2 R102. 12: . 2 e1001899. 12: . 0 4091–4106. 10: . urOi ln Biol Plant Opin Curr 5:285–293. 157: . rn ln Sci Plant Front c Rep Sci 3 15–22. 53: . otcRes Hortic :14280. 8: . :1–19. 7: . :58. 6: . Renew Ann Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. oly .. uep,MO,adODnuhe ..(08 dnicto fnvllc soitdwith associated loci lines. novel introduction of plant soybean Identification maturity (2018) early L.S. in traits O’Donoughue, yield and and M.O., maturity Duceppe, T.R., Copley, Appliqu´ees RENNES-INSA. Sciences Urba- environne- des et impacts G´enie `a National Civil g´enie faibles and mat´eriaux civil Institut de Rennes, de Repeat-Mediated mentaux. appliqu´ees de thermique of sciences et Caract´erisation des Rates hydrique (2004) national Variable nisme Institut and J., High Miriel, Plants. (2018) F., of Collet-Foucault, J.D. Genus Palmer, a in and Rearrangement J.P., Genome Mower, Mitochondrial W., Guo, Challenging. L.W., So Cole, Is Sequences Fern´andez-Pozo, (2012) Genome and N. Plant P., Seoane, Assembling H., Why Guerrero-Fern´andez, Benzerki, R., D., Bautista, M.G., metal Claros, Heavy (2016) (2003) Prospects. M.D. S. L. Future sativa Merlin, and Sgorbati, Diversity, Cannabis and and by P., Ni R.C., Ranalli, and Clarke, Cr N., Cd, Prato, of P., accumulation Fumagalli, and Mo- A., tolerance strategy. adsorbent-treated Santagostino, medium from S., production production Citterio, in anthraquinones cultures Enhanced suspension (2007) cell M.A. elliptica rinda Abdullah, and OF L., Chiang, REGULATION Chromosomes. Sex HORMONAL Highly Plant (2019) AND (2016) D. al. GENETIC PLANTS. Charlesworth, IN et (1979) EXPRESSION S., SEX K.A. AND Martello, Timiriazev, FLOWERING, I., GROWTH, L. and sativa Boschi, Cannabis M.Kh., L., Fiber-Type Chailakhyan, Baldassarri, from Drug-Type D., Distinguish Migliorini, Markers Genetic A., Cultivation,Predictive Farcomeni, Industry: Hemp seeds. F., European and Cascini, The shivs (2013) fibres, S. flowering for Bertucelli, of applications and mechanisms and J., Molecular processing Hobson, (2017) A., soybean. F. Kauffmann, in Kong, M., habit and Carus, growth A., stem Jun, and B., days Liu, long C., under Zhao, R., Chromosome- Takeshima, interactions. D., (2013) chromatin Cao, J. on Shendure, based and assemblies The J.O., genome (2009) novo Kitzman, al. 1125. de R., et Qiu, of R.P., scaffolding C., Patwardhan, scale Browne, A., P.J., Adey, J.N., Brown, Burton, C.B., Time. Acharya, Flowering and Maize P.J., Pharmacology of Bradbury, (2020) Architecture J.B., al. Genetic Holland, et S., E.S., Pichini, Buckler, R., Pacifici, Com- P., cannabidiol. a Berretta, of of cucurbit F., status Generation Pirani, legal A (2019) A.F.L., (2015) N.O.I. Cannabis. Faro, P., Medicinal Cogan, al. Brunetti, in and et Dynamics G.C., Transcriptome M.-A., Spangenberg, and L.S., Atlas Sari, Transcriptome Jewell, H., prehensive emerges. R.C., Morin, dioecy Baillie, and S., A., develop Braich, flowers Lemhemdi, unisexual C., how reveals Camps, gene C., androecy Hemp. Troadec, of A., Responses Synthases Photoperiodic Boualem, Terpene (1954) (2020) N.J. J. Scully, Bohlmann, and and H.A., Borthwick, J., sativa. Page, Cannabis L., in Madilao, humans. Variation S., to Terpene Jancsik, genome and M.M.S., plant Yuen, From J.K., – sativa Booth, Cannabis in Terpenes (2019) J. Sci Bohlmann, and J.K., Booth, 8:67–72. 284: . n s ue Sanit`a Super Ist Ann rtRvPatSci Plant Rev Crit Cannabis ln Physiol Plant Science 56. . nuRvPatBiol Plant Rev Annu 5 293–327. 35: . oetcto,Bedn itr,PeetdyGenetic Present-day History, Breeding Domestication, x Bot Exp J 33 uoenIdsra epAssociation Hemp Industrial European 2:714–718. 325: . . o ilEvol Biol Mol Biology 8 1873–1884. 68: . ln Soil Plant mJBot J Am :439–459. 1: . rcs Biochem Process 7 397–420. 67: . Science 5 2773–2785. 35: . o Gaz Bot M Genomics BMC 5:243–252. 256: . 6 717–736. 66: . 5:688–691. 350: . a Biotechnol Nat 1:14–29. 116: . c Rep Sci 2 757–763. 42: . Plants . 9 1–12. 19: . :16583. 9: . :496. 8: . 1 1119– 31: . Plant Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. lrsSnhz .. ec . e,J,Co,YH,Dˇe,J,adVrore .(09 lctto tde in studies energy Elicitation and (2009) R. climate L. Verpoorte, sativa for Cannabis and Duˇsek, crop of J., Y.H., cultures energy Choi, suspension annual cell J., sustainable Fei, Peˇc, J., more I.J., A Flores-Sanchez, Hemp: (2013) D. crops Styles, policy. hemp of and balance J., gas greenhouse Finnan, the optimize to fertilization biomass. Nitrogen for (2013) grown B. Burke, and cannabigerolic sex J., yields Finnan, transferase for hemp tetrahydrocannabinol. QTLs a by of of olivetolate precursor of Identification the Prenylation (2016) (1998) acid, M.H. P. L.). Zenk, sativa Bertin, and (Cannabis M., and Fellermeier, hemp A., monoecious Occre, and M.-C., dioecious in Flamand, expression X., Draye, A.-M., expression sex Faux, quantitative L.). L. and sativa chromosomes sativa (Cannabis Sex Cannabis (2014) hemp P. of Bertin, monoecious and Cultures in N., Dauguet, Root A., Hairy Berhin, A.-M., by Faux, Production Sci Cannabinoids Plant (2015) J O. Am Kayser, angiosperms. and in flowers S., and the Farag, Arabidopsis of diversification of Evolutionary Surroundings (2011) Phylogenetic P.K. Endress, The Diversity: Floral and and regulation Evolution Antirrhinum. of overview (1992) P.K. mammals: and Endress, plants in dynamics Determination methylation Sex Cy- dysregulation. DNA Chromosome Molecular (2016) XY (2014) A.R. an Elhamamsy, G.I. with Karlov, sativa and Cannabis I.V., Dioecious Kirov, System. the for Cannabidiol of O.V., of Razumova, Characterization Trial (2017) togenetic O.S., al. Alexandrov, et M.G., R., Divashuk, Nabbout, Syndrome. I., Dravet Miller, the E., in Marsh, Seizures L., Drug-Resistant Laux, In J.H., Cross, Overview. O., Brief Devinsky, A (CANNABA- Cannabigerol: of L. Uses SATIVA Pathologies Medical Related CANNABIS Potential (2017) OF S. TRICHOMES Deiana, (1976) P.B. Arabidopsis. Kaufman, in CEAE). and genome Double- P., (2011) mitochondrial al. the Dayanandan, et potential of V., a evolution Shedge, as drive J., hemp Hagmann, processes 64. J., Industrial repair Cao, (2017) break Y., al. Wamboldt, strand M.P., et Arrieta-Montiel, C., sorghum. J.I., Li, Davila, biomass H., and switchgrass Hu, kenaf, D.W., with Williams, 649. comparison A., in preli- Saeed, crop a al. E., bioenergy disorder: et Liu, anxiety social R., L., generalized Martin-Santos, Das, in F.L., (CBD) cannabidiol Duran, of of L., effects report. flowering Wichert-Ana, anxiolytic minary of of T.B., prediction basis Ferrari, and Neural G.N., movement(2011) time Derenusson, protein Europe. Sowing southern J.A.S., (2012) FT in V. Crippa, (2007) genotypes Copani, al. L.) and sativa et (Cannabis D., I., hemp Scordia, Searle, different G., Arabidopsis. Q., Testa, of Fan, S.L., induction Cosentino, F., floral Fornara, in S., signaling long-distance Jang, to C., contributes Vincent, L., Corbesier, nryPolicy Energy mJBot J Am LSONE PLoS n ln Sci Plant J Int elBohmFunct Biochem Cell scohrao (Oxf) Psychopharmacol J 6 1874–1884. 06: . 3 578–591. 63: . p 5–6 cdmcPress. Academic 958–967 pp. . C Bioenergy GCB :e85118. 9: . 8 152–162. 58: . 5:S106–S122. 153: . 4 289–298. 34: . :701–712. 5: . 5 121–130. 25: . Euphytica ESLett FEBS Biotechnol J nlJMed J Engl N 9:183–197. 196: . 34 2:283–285. 427: . 4:157–168. 143: . 7:2011–2020. 376: . n rp Prod Crops Ind Euphytica Science 0:357–376. 209: . irsu Technol Bioresour 1:1030–1033. 316: . mJBot J Am adoko anbsand Cannabis of Handbook 7 20–33. 37: . 8 370–396. 98: . M Biol BMC 4:641– 244: . 9: . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. epislto:rlsadpnl WWDcmn](07 ehihnr.URL Technichanvre. . (2017) Document] [WWW panels and an (GBS), rolls Genotyping-by-sequencing (2014) Z. to 8.5.20). Li, (accessed graphics http://www.technichanvre.com/1411-2/1499-2/hemp-insulationrolls-and-panels/ and SVG insulation: breeding. H., drawing plant Liu, accelerate RIdeogram: Hemp Z.-X., to (2020) tool Lu, (MAS) al. A., selection et Laroche, marker-assisted G., X., ultimate Yu, Zhao, D., idiograms. J., Weijers, the He, on J., data Shi, genome-wide Y., map Ge, and D., visualize Lv, CANNABIS Z., OF Hao, HAIRS GLANDULAR MICROSCOPY. OF ELECTRON MORPHOLOGY SCANNING (1973) Hemp. P.G. FROM SATIVA Industrial Mahlberg, in and Control C.T., Flowering Hammond, of Review (2012) D.J. Midmore, and Fibers Transcriptomic S.P., stages. (2017) Bhattarai, developmental al. J., different et Hall, at M., Ghoniem, fibres S., bast Zorzan, hemp L., of Mangeot-Peter, S., profiling Legay, M., Behr, Cham. G., Cannabis Guerriero, Publishing, of International Breeding Springer in A 137–160 Phenotypes (2018) pp. Morphological M.A. and Chemical al. In (2017) L. et J.M. sativa McPartland, T.P., and Michael, G., Grassi, S.T., Motley, S.G., Poplawski, bioRxiv time C., flowering Dabney, of J.P., complete perspective Wenger, the wild C.J., from of Grassa, processes genome reference Evolutionary high-quality (2020) A B.K. (2020) Blackman, diversity. al. and et L., A., Pei, of Gaudinier, J., Profiles Zhang, Expression X., Genome-Wide Xu, (2018) S., sativa. al. Xie, Cannabis et B., Stress. P., Wang, Drought Xin, S., to Gao, Q., Response Tang, in Y., L.) Yu, sativa L., (Cannabis Zhao, Hemp C., Cheng, determination. C., Sex Gao, (2012) D. Zarkower, and Root T., Cannabidiol Cannabidiol. Hairy Gamble, of in of Dose-Response Efficient Enriched Bell-Shaped Establishment Extract the the (2015) Cannabis Overcoming for Using (2015) Hanuˇs, al. by L. L.O. and et Z., Tinctoria Yekhtin, W., Activities. R., Isatis Antioxidant Gallily, Nested Ma, of of maize Y.-G., Evaluation Transformation and Zu, the Flavonoids Mediated Z.-F., of of Rhizogenes Wei, Years Production Ten Agrobacterium M., (2020) Luo, by E.S. J., Directions. Cultures Future Buckler, Jiao, and and , Q.-Y., in Limitations E.S., Gai, , Trichomes Buckler, Impact Glandular A., : and Population Giri, Mapping Laticifers B., Association Monier, of J.L., Analyses Gage, Histochemical (1981) P.G. based sativa. cannabis Mahlberg, Cannabis of and use M., Medicinal (2019) Furr, M.A.P. Bloomfield, and cannabinoids. S.F., and and Green, products observations C., new Hindocha, and T.P., Old plants: Freeman, in change Sex (1980) E.L. hypotheses. Charnov, Arabidopsis. new and in K.T., Flowering Harper, D.C., of Cannabinoids. Freeman, Control of Use SnapShot: Medical (2018) (2010) Torres-Su´arez, A.I. and Fraguas-S´anchez, G. A.I., Coupland, and A., Montaigu, Cell de F., Fornara, 4:550-550.e2. 141: . :23–36. 9: . . Cannabis e Phytol New anbsStv .-Btn n Biotechnology and Botany - L. Sativa Cannabis Oecologia a Prod Nat J otcRes Hortic hoooeasml n dpieamxuefreeae anbdo CD content. (CBD) cannabidiol elevated for admixture adaptive and assembly chromosome 2:1883–1898. 225: . 7 222–232. 47: . 7. . BMJ 4 153–159. 44: . l1141. . 35 hrao Pharm Pharmacol er optSci Comput PeerJ urBiol Curr dtdb hnr,S,Lt,H,adElSohly, and H., Lata, S., Chandra, by Edited . n Genomics J Int mJBot J Am c Rep Sci 2 R257–R262. 22: . LSONE PLOS 0 524–528. 60: . 7. . 6 75–85. 06: . :e251. 6: . 08 1–13. 2018: . rn ln Sci Plant Front 10. . ln Cell Plant Drugs 8 1665–1703. 78: . 2 2083–2093. 32: . :484. 5: . Nat J Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. inn,O,Ril,A,Gie,J,Wle,R,adPva .(06 cutcasrto fhemp-lime of absorption Acoustic (2016) S. Pavia, and R., Walker, Crisis. J., Climate Grimes, the A., construction. and Reilly, Architecture O., Obsolescence, - Kinnane, Building of Cost the Irel Archit Calculating (2020) O. TRI- GLANDULAR Kinnane, IN (CANNABACEAE). DEVELOPMENT L. SATIVA CAVITY SECRETORY CANNABIS (1991) OF P.G. CHOMES Mahlberg, and E.-S., Kim, Sci M Pain. and Cancer-Related Intractable C., with Jung, Patients in (2010) Manage Extract Safety, M.T. Symptom THC Efficacy, Fallon, Pain and the and Extract J of R., THC:CBD Study Potts, of Parallel-Group Tolerability E.D., and Placebo-Controlled, Ganae-Motan, Randomized, D., Double-Blind, Lossignol, Multicenter, M., biogeography Historical Burnell-Nugent, migrators: J.R., Born plant Johnson, (2020) on T. Cannabaceae. Yi, technologies family and D., genomic cosmopolitan Li, the generation R., Velzen, of P.W., third Fritsch, M., of Yang, J., impact Jin, The (2017) K. assembly. Schneeberger, genome and W.-B., isoflavonoids extracts. of Jiao, of production FT activities Efficient antioxidant of (2014) of variations evaluation al. et Natural and S.-N., cultures Chem (2019) Tan, Food root X., hairy Peng, al. membranaceus groups. W., et Ma, Astragalus maturity Y.-J., C., by of Fu, Zhang, Q.-Y., range Gai, S., wide J., a Sun, Jiao, covering M.A.A., varieties Khan, soybean plants. W., in Cannabis genes Song, for family S., Genome Zhang, Annotated B., Available Jiang, Publicly First The (2019) B. bioRxiv use. Orsburn, medical and for C., genotypes Jenkins, L.) sativa Cannabis ( cannabis cell 363–367. different plant in modified cannabi- contents genetically and noids Yield in (2018) productivity Klouˇcek, plant P. and protein Boˇzik, Non-psychotropic Fraˇnkov´a, M., of Janatov´a, K., (2009) A., recovery Hamouz, Tlustoˇs, and P., R. A., Loss Mechoulam, (2006) and J.M. lines. Lee, V., and herb. Marzo, ancient E. an James, Di BY-2 from R., in opportunities Optimal antibody Capasso, therapeutic (2010) full-size new F., monoclonal cannabinoids: al. Borrelli, a et of A.A., J., production Izzo, Stadlmann, sustained and F., increased Altmann, for to K., opportunities culture. key Schmale, suspension and a T., cereals as Rademacher, supply in M., nitrogen phenology Sack, flowering T., of Holland, architecture Genetic (2016) C. improvement. plants. Li, crop flowering and in C.B., expression Hill, sex of modification 38–90. experimental 32: The sativa. (1957) Cannabis J. in Heslop-Harrison, Sexuality and motifs. Auxin promoter (1956) separate J. via regu- Heslop-Harrison, Antagonistic FLC (2002) and CONSTANS G. by Coupland, SOC1 and 4327–4337. gene A., flowering-time Mouradov, of D., Ravenscroft, lation F., Valverde, S.R., Hepworth, 4 563–573. 14: . ln elRep. Cell Plant . . 2 12649–12658. 62: . osrBidMater Build Constr le,AE 20)Foeigtm oto n plctosi ln breeding. plant in applications and control time Flowering (2009) A.E. uller, ¨ urOi ln Biol Plant Opin Curr rn ln Sci Plant Front itcnl Bioeng. Biotechnol. 5 723–727. 25: 9 167–179. 39: . 2:674–682. 122: . :1906–1906. 7: . 6 64–70. 36: . 0:278–289. 107: ytEvol Syst J 36 8 461–473. 58: . mJBot J Am rnsPamclSci Pharmacol Trends hso Plant Physiol 8 220–229. 78: . M Genomics BMC :588–597. 9: . n rp Prod Crops Ind 0 515–527. 30: . 0 1–16. 20: . MOJ EMBO rnsPlant Trends ilRev Biol Agric J 112: . 21: . . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 22)Cnai lnua rcoe le opooyadmtblt otn uigflwrmaturation. flower during content metabolite al. et and J., morphology between Laflamme-Yonkman, differences K.H., alter J Transcriptome Rensing, trichomes Plant (2016) D.C.J., glandular Wong, al. J.K., Cannabis et Booth, (2020) M., T.D., salinity. Zhao, Quilichini, to G., S.J., exposed Livingston, Deng, variety G., sativa Du, Cannabis seed-type X., simu- and Cheng, photoperiod. L.) fiber-type Q., to sativa cultivars Qiao, (Cannabis hemp J., hemp two a Liu, of of response Development flowering (2000) 2.The P.S. Carberry, model and lation N.J., (2009) Mendham, al. genome. sequencing S.N., et human Lisson, bisulfite A., the Telling, of genome drought T., principles Ragoczy, Whole folding to M., 289–293. reveals (2020) response Imakaev, interactions 326: long-range al. L., in of Williams, et modifications mapping N.L., Comprehensive T., epigenome Berkum, van Fan, reveals E., M., ) Lieberman-Aiden, alba Chen, Morus Y., ( Zhang, mulberry B., stress. Cucurbits. of Li, in analysis Determination F., Sex methylome Hu, Regulating Interactions R., Gene Li, (2019) Z. Li, and Sci H., Plant Cannabaceae. Niu, Front in Y., flowers Sheng, of D., diversity Li, and structure of aspects novel reveals Sch F.M., AGL24 Leme, with interaction phytochrome-controlled by underlying mechanisms nucleus plants. Molecular the in (2019) to morphogenesis C. Fankhauser, Y.C¸ translocated and Ince, SOC1 ., M., (2008) Legris, I. and Lee, physical and A LEAFY. H., regulates (2019) Park, directly al. M., Oh, et J., L., Lee, Holbrook, N., Gill, Res H., Genome Shah, of M.J., map Sullivan, genetic J.M., Stout, K.U., Laverty, guide. armchair Sci W Plant an and Front C.F.H., development: Longin, flower S.M., of Langer, mechanisms Molecular (2005) Genet J.C. Study. Rev Case Fletcher, Nat A and Purposes: B.A., The Energy Krizek, of for (2020) Assessment L.) al. (2019) Sativa M. (Cannabis et Sprawka, Biomass Niedzi´o and J.R., Hemp 9. G., I., Using Ashnest, Zaj, lka, of S., Possibility J., Parafiniuk, the Ebersbach, M., Kachel, R., A., Velzen, Kraszkiewicz, van P., Rigault, of M., Genomics modulating Pellino, via effect I., anti-stress mice. an Kovalchuk, in causes vapor activities oil DA perspective. Lemon and (2006) phylogenetic 5-HT E. in the Harada, and peculiarities T., Takeuchi, plants: M., Komiya, land of DNA mitochondrial The Genet (2004) V. Knoop, Sch and F., 386–397. Nagy, tob- suspension C., Monoclonal cell heterogeneous (2012) Klose, from al. generated et be W., sorting. can Treffenfeldt, flow yields S., protein by recombinant Russell, cultures enhanced J.L., with Roberts, lines A., cell acco Boes, N., Raven, J., Kirchhoff, 6 123–139. 46: . c Rep Sci 0:37–56. 101: . 9 146–156. 29: . Cannabis 0 1–17. 10: . :688–698. 6: . 0 1231. 10: . 1–11. 5: . anbssativa Cannabis nnegr . telr .. n exia ..(00 oprtv oa development floral Comparative (2020) S.P. Teixeira, and Y.M., Staedler, J., ¨ onenberger, n t ls Relatives. Close Its and ln itcnl J. Biotechnol. Plant a Commun Nat ln J Plant fr .(00 hra eeso fPatPhytochromes. Plant of Reversion Thermal (2020) E. ¨ afer, dnie xesv eragmnsa h H/B cdsnhs loci. synthase acid THC/CBD the at rearrangements extensive identifies 5 832–843. 55: . ea ri Res Brain Behav rcu,T 21)Foeigtm oto nErpa itrwheat. winter European in control time Flowering (2014) T. urschum, ¨ 0 1–15. 10: . 0 936–944. 10: nuRvPatBiol Plant Rev Annu 37 7:240–249. 172: . 1 713–739. 71: . hso o ilPlants Biol Mol Physiol o inSoc Linn J Bot utJEpAgric Exp J Aust 9:64–83. 193: . o Plant Mol 2 429–443. 22: . 0 413. 40: . plSci Appl Science Curr 13: . . . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. otngo .. oiz .. ae,PE,Hroi,B,Le . hn .KK,e l 21)The (2017) al. et C.-K.K., Chan, H., Lee, B., Hurgobin, wheat. P.E., bread Bayer, hexaploid of A.A., pangenome Golicz, J.D., study. Cannabis Montenegro, of molecular differentiation and sexual The morphological (2004) A G. Mandolino, L.: and sativa P., sativa Cannabis Ranalli, female complex. L., genetically Cattivelli, anionic in V.M.C., thiosulphate flowers Moliterni, silver male fertile and of nitrate Induction silver (1982) by R. plants Sett, and genomes. H.Y., in plant Ram, phenotype Mohan near-complete chemical genetics Building molecular of (2020) and inheritance R. studies VanBuren, The Genome and (2009b) T.P., A. Michael, plants. Sutton, in cannabinoid-free and phenotype (IV): K.M., L. chemical sativa of Hammond, Cannabis inheritance E.P.M., The Meijer, proportion. (2009a) cannabichromene de in M. variation Micheler, (III): and sativa L. Cannabis K.M., sativa in Cannabis Hammond, phenotype E.P.M., chemical Meijer, of de inheritance plants. The The predominant (2005) (2003) Cannabigerol K.M. al. (II): Hammond, et L. and P., E.P.M., Ranalli, L. Meijer, V.M.C., sativa de Moliterni, oil. Cannabis P., essential in Crucitti, phenotype hemp A., chemical of Carboni, of quality M., inheritance the Bagatta, E.P.M., and Meijer, yield de the influencing Factors Assoc (1998) law. Hemp V. and U.S. Int Mediavilla, under Sequence and (CBD) (2020) C., cannabidiol Meier, and (marijuana) al. cannabis and et of synthesis status B., legal cannabinoid Behav Liu, The in (2017) variation L., A. number Mead, Zhang, copy Genomics. H., extensive (preprint). reveals assembly. Ebling, genes genomes genome resistance L.T., cannabis pathogen L. Kane, sativa 42 and of Cannabis Y., Cryptocurrencies contiguous annotation Helbert, (2018) more K.J., al. a et McKernan, to B., path Liu, unclouded L., An Zhang, H., OSFPREPRINTS guides: Ebling, Wave L.T., Mode Kane, Zero Y., Helbert, in K., Silver McKernan, by Predominant Responses the Ethylene Has and of Sufficient Is 26094–26103. Inhibition (ETR1) Mediating 1 Receptor in Ethylene (2012) Role B.M. two Binder, metabolites. and between B.K., secondary Living McDaniel, plant (2013) M. producing Bonfill, for and P., systems 1–22. Mazzafera, culture A.G., two-phase diversity. Fett-Neto, M., phylogenetic worlds: Mirjalili, plant Hossein metacal- flowering S., A Malik, of (2015) and rise T. Genomic early Hernandez-Hernandez, (2016) the and 437–453. al. documents L.L., et Sanchez-Reyes, time-tree M.J., S., ibrated Gibbs, Gomez-Acevedo, C.J., S., Schwartz, Magallon, K., locus White, J S., soybean in Tittes, Diversity the Chemical D., biosynthesis at Complete Vergara, variation (2019) yeast. R.C., Natural in al. Lynch, et (2017) analogues A., unnatural Lechner, al. their C.M., Denby, et and J., Wong, cannabinoids X., L., of Li, d’Espaux, M.A., H., Reiter, yield. Nan, X., enhances Luo, S., and tropics Liu, the Y., to Hu, adaptation X., improves Zhao, S., Lu, 0 288–291. 70: . :16–20. 5: . . Cannabis . rtRvPatSci Plant Rev Crit ln J Plant 4 26–33. 54: Euphytica 0 1007–1013. 90: . Euphytica Euphytica 5 349–363. 35: . 38 4:189–198. 145: . a Genet Nat Nature Genetics 6:95–112. 168: . 4:95–106. 140: . 6:123–126. 567: . ho plGenet Appl Theor 9 773–779. 49: . 6:335–346. 163: . rbdpi thaliana Arabidopsis Euphytica 6:293–311. 165: . rtRvBiotechnol Rev Crit 2 369–375. 62: . urOi ln Biol Plant Opin Curr . ilChem Biol J e Phytol New Epilepsy 207: . 287: . 33: . ., J Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. erhdoanbnlcai-ytaei anbsstv .adisrltosi ihceia pheno- chemical and with cannabidiolic- relationship of its heterogeneity and Sequence (2015) L. G. sativa Mandolino, Cannabis and type. in E.P.M., acid-synthase Meijer, genome possibilities. tetrahydrocannabinolic de Prolific chloroplast cultures: complete C., root Two Onofri, hairy (2016) of al. multiplicity The et (2011) J.-K., L. 439–446. Park, Tian, E., and N.N., Jo, cry- Ono, D.-H., High-throughput Ahn, varieties. (2012) sativa S., al. Cannabis Lee, et of B., K., sequences Mori, Seo, genomics. Y., H., functional Morishita, Oh, for K., natural cultures Kai, Widespread cell A., plant (2016) Oikawa, of al. opreservation N., et Sakurai, Q., Li, Y., K.D., Ogawa, angiosperms. Kim, within M.S., methylation Alabady, DNA L., Temperatures. of Ji, variation Air A.J., and Bewick, Soil C.E., Differential Niederhuth, To Hemp of and Responses 294–309. redundantly factor 19: Growth GmFT5a transcription and (1944) GmFT2a bZIP C.H. (2014) the Nelson, al. of et upregulation L., and Tang, soybean. with S., in interaction Lu, GmFDL19 Y., through Li, flowering D., regulate Zhang, differentially D., Cao, H., Cytotoxic Nan, Terpenoids Cell (2019) for al. Interaction et Specific M., Show Mazuz, Strains Sativa E., Activity. Cannabis Mayzlish-Gati, in S., Co-Produced Nadarajan, Phytocannabinoids V., and Ajjampura, cryopreservation H., Voet, and growth D., Initiation, Namdar, P. (2011) cultures. R. e Verpoorte, suspension I. and cell di F., plant Iren, (Istituto van of S. W., cultivars Winter, Lombardi, different de and N.R., for in F., Mustafa, -9-TCH) di (delta Evidence I. L. tetrahydrocannabinol (Italy) sativa on U. Enzymological Cannabis conditions (Bologna on environmental de (1997) of R. Influence Sanctis, (1983) Y. A.M., Puccini, G., Shoyama, Murari, and F., In tion. Taxol The Taura, (2010) P.N.G. Mountford, K., Komatsu, Biosynthesis. Perspectives Acid Therapeutic Cannabichromenic Novel S., and Review Morimoto, Critical Test? Acid the Systems Pass of You Development of Can (2020) (2016) al. G. et H.S., Moreno-Sanz, Biopharmaceuticals. Cho, Plant-Derived H.-J., of Lee, I.-J., Production Song, the Y.-I., for Park, J.-S., Park, K.-B., Moon, xrcsOe uie B nTetetRssatEies:OsrainlDt Meta-analysis. Cannabis Data CBD-Rich Observational of Benefits Epilepsy: Clinical Treatment-Resistant Potential in (2018) CBD A.C. Coan, Purified and Over in L.R., Extracts slowly Silva, but da structure, F.A., in Pamplona, rapidly evolved DNA mitochondrial Plant (1988) L.A. sequence. Herbon, and and In J.D., Genetics Cannabis. Palmer, and (2006) Hop in G. Metabolites Terpenophenolic Mandolino, Phytochemistry of Biosynthesis in and (2006) Advances P., J. L. Nagel, Ranalli, sativa and J.E., Cannabis A., Page, in Carboni, Chemotype M., cannabinoid the of of Micheler, Selection course F., Marker-assisted Time L. Miselli, (2008) sativa G. D., Cannabis Mandolino, of Pacifico, growth and the A., during Moschella, development chemotype A., and Carboni, accumulation F., Miselli, D., Pacifico, Δ Phytochemistry Ttayrcnaioi cdA. Acid -Tetrahydrocannabinolic 9 re hmsr ntePamcuia Industry Pharmaceutical the in Chemistry Green Molecules o Evol Mol J 4 3031. 24: . 1:57–68. 116: . 8 87–97. 28: . Fitoterapia LSONE PLoS p 7–1 Elsevier. 179–210 pp. . a Protoc Nat 4 195–201. 54: . 9. . ® iohnra N atA Part DNA Mitochondrial a Prod Nat J tr eeomn faGenSnhssvaPatCl Fermenta- Cell Plant via Synthesis Green a of Development – Story anbsCnaiodRes Cannabinoid Cannabis :715–742. 6: . 0 854–857. 60: . eoeBiol Genome 39 p 145–160. pp. . Plants ln elPhysiol. Cell Plant 7 194. 17: . 9. . 7 2835–2837. 27: . o Breed Mol :124–130. 1: . 7 257–268. 17: . 3 943–952. 53: Euphytica ln Sci Plant 6:231–240. 160: . ln Physiol Plant Recent 180: . Front . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aa,V,Lt,H,Cada . hn .. n lol,MA 21)Mrh-ntm fMarijuana of Cham. Morpho-Anatomy Publishing, (2017) International Springer M.A. 123–136 ElSohly, pp. by and M.A. sativa I.A., ElSohly, Cannabis Khan, and In of S., L.). plants Chandra, sativa female H., (Cannabis on Lata, flowers V., acid. male Raman, abscisic of by Induction inhibition by (1972) its L. Sativa V.S. and ofCannabis Jaiswal, gibberellins plants and male H.Y.M., on Ram, flowers female of Induction (1970) acid. V.S. factors. 2-chloroethanephos-phonic Jaiswal, transcription arabidopsis and finger of H.Y.M., zinc gene Ram, to CONSTANS The similarities (1995) showing G. protein Coupland, a RNA- and 847–857. encodes efficient R., and Simon, An flowering K., (2020) Lee, promotes al. F., et Robson, C., J., of Feng, Putterill, chromosomes H., sex the Henri, identifies H., analysis Badouin, segregation Rhon´e, B., seq-based production O., biofuel Razumova, solid D., and biogas Prentout, for balances Energy (2012) hemp. industrial J.E. industrial of Mattsson, from yield and energy S.E., Svensson, and T., Biomass fuel. Prade, (2011) solid J.E. and Mattsson, biogas and for A., grown Andersson, hemp S.E., production for Svensson, L.) T., sativa Prade, (Cannabis UK. cannabis the of in processing and medicines Bioactivities. cultivation prescription the their of of review and A Phenolics (2014) D.J. Cannabis Potter, (2018b) (2018a) L.G. al. Fresu, et and O., Chem A., Taglialatela-Scafati, Minassi, A., F., Minassi, Pollastro, F., Rogati, D., in Prete, Cannabinoids Del Cannabichromene. (2018) D., Caprioglio, A. F., Serefko, Pollastro, and Wr´obel, A., content A., genomic disorders. Szopa, S repetitive depressive lawi´nska, K., Wo´sko, the S., of E., evolution Poleszak, and Diversity al. (2018) et N.C. sativa. Kane, J., Cannabis and in Croda, D., model. Vergara, A.S.N., pain R., neuropathic Formagio, Pisupati, a (R)-(+)-limonene, S.A., in of fruits Oesterreich, terebinthifolius actions Schinus E.C., antidepressive from Konkiewitz, and Antihyperalgesic J.A., UK. Oxford, (2015) Santos, Press, University A.C., Oxford Piccinelli, Cannabis. of of bases Handbook molecular (2014) and R.G. Genetic Pertwee, determination. (2019) sex of Z. L.) Environment sativus Przybecki, Mountain (Cucumis and and a cucumber Phytochemical in W., (2019) Grown Plader, Skarzy´nska, al. L.) A., et Pawe M.E., sativa C., lkowicz, (Cannabis Cattaneo, Hemp C., of Citti, Alps. Varieties V., Italian Two Leoni, of systematic L., Analysis a sector. Giupponi, biotechnology: Ecological manufacturing S., novel new Panseri, a of of R., in Commercialization Pavlovic, cultivation studies (2015) case root J.K.-C. commercial Ma, hairy 16 and of by review H., artemisinin Thangaraj, of reactor. M.J., tank production Paul, stirred Enhanced modified a (2014) in A.K. annua plants. Srivastava, Artemisia in and systems sex-chromosome N., Dosage Patra, (1991) M.S. Clark, and J.S., Parker, Neurol 5 1160–1185. 25: . :759. 9: . rn ln Sci Plant Front a rdCommun Prod Nat M Genomics BMC ieSci Life ims Bioenergy Biomass anbsStv .-Btn n Biotechnology and Botany - L. Sativa Cannabis 0 1265. 10: . 1:18–24. 213: . Experientia 9 156. 19: . rgTs Anal Test Drug 3 1934578X1801300. 13: . ims Bioenergy Biomass 0 36–52. 40: . 6 214–216. 26: . Planta o Breed Mol plBohmBiotechnol Biochem Appl 40 :31–38. 6: . 0:263–266. 105: . 5 3040–3049. 35: . 9 50. 39: . anbssativa Cannabis urNeurosci Nutr ln itcnlJ Biotechnol Plant dtdb hnr,S,Lt,H., Lata, S., Chandra, by Edited . α- hladee n seta oil essential and phellandrene, 7:2209–2222. 174: . 8 217–224. 18: . . ln Sci Plant eoeRes Genome 3 1209–1220. 13: . 0 79–92. 80: . 0 164–172. 30: . urMed Curr Cell 80: . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ats .. adn . ogva . otine . cuet . e,AL,e l 22)Tdigu the Tidying-up (2020) al. dynamics. soybean. et and A.L., in function, Tek, domains, E10, D., space: Schubert, locus, nuclear Mapping F., maturity plant Pontvianne, Mozgov´a, (2017) I., novel V., al. Gaudin, a et A.P., Santos, for A., Golshani, gene F., candidate Dehne, potential A., a Genet Schoenrock, of M., identification Charette, and Arabidopsis. S.J., of Molnar, Distinct development (2000) B., reproductive al. Samanfar, et in M.F., genes Yanofsky, Z., target Schwarz-Sommer, constans G.S., Ditta, of S.E., roles fiber Gold, in H., developments Onouchi, New A., Samach, (2015) L.M. breeding. Trindade, and L.) M., sativa Yang, (Cannabis S., hemp Amaducci, Q., behavior Zhang, flowering E.M.J., between Salentijn, interactions complex hemp. The in a (2019) quality of L.M. fiber Trindade, accumulation and and J., Site-specific sativa. Petit, (2000) Cannabis E.M.J., plant Salentijn, S. dioecious Satoh, the and of chromosome H., sex Kamada, 723–732. a K., Sizes in Fukui, Genome retrotransposon N., LINE-like Characterization; L.). sativa (1998) Ohmido, (Cannabis S. K., Hemp Satoh, Sakamoto, in and Chromosomes H., Sex Kamada, of K., Morphology Fukui, and Y., Akiyama, K., concretes. Sakamoto, aggregate hemp of No performance Cannabis: and Clinical perties of Breeding Conventional and S´aez-P´erez, Br Effect M.P., Entourage the Gain. for No entourage Case “Strain,” The phytocannabinoid-terpenoid (2019) and E.B. synergy Russo, cannabis potential THC: Taming effects. vulgaris. (2011) recovery Beta E.B. the and of adsorption Russo, cultures to situ Ex root Response and hairy situ Global from In (2004) the betalains R.G. Aswathanarayana, of Strengthening and B., of Neelwarne, T., Context Rudrappa, Mitigation the 2: 1.5 in Change. Chapter of Climate Pathways, (2018) Warming of Emission Global al. Threat of et Gas Impacts V., Greenhouse the Ginzburg, Global Forster, on P. Report Special S., IPCC Fifita, 1.5 K., show. with Jiang, on compatible pathways D., is et chromatin Shindell, M., plant Crespi, J., on: C., Rogelj, glasses Raynaud, 3D D., your Latrasse, Put monoecy, A., (2016) Veluchamy, Dioecy, al. J.S., systems: Ramirez-Prado, sexual N.Y., angiosperm Rodriguez-Granados, of database. thermal frequencies online The absolute updated (2019) an and and relative al. gynodioecy, The et measurement. (2014) R., direct Walker, S.S. of Pav´ıa,Renner, S., method G., a McGranaghan, and the F.J., hemplime, of Lesage, of Design diffusivity O., Sustainable Kinnane, for A., Conference Reilly, International the Iowa. at of Presented London. University (2017) Environment Science). O. Built of Kinnane, (Master and L A., sativa Reilly, cannabis of and Morphology variations (1914) Molecular karyotype J. (2016) its Reed, reveals G.I. cultivars Karlov, L.) sativa and constitution. (Cannabis T.I., chromosomes hemp sex Sukhorada, monoecious M.G., of Divashuk, analysis cytogenetic O.S., Alexandrov, O.V., Razumova, 3:377–390. 130: . rJPharmacol J Br rn ln Sci Plant Front me,M,adDra-uae,JA 22)Arve ftefcosaetn h pro- the affecting factors the of review A Dur´an-Su´arez, (2020) and J.A. M., ummer, ¨ 6:1344–1364. 163: . rn ln Sci Plant Front negvrmna ae nCiaeChange. Climate on Panel Intergovernmental ° ntecneto utial eeomn.In development. sustainable of context the in C Protoplasma 9. . n rp Prod Crops Ind 10. . 5:895–901. 253: . mJBot J Am 41 8 32–41. 68: . ul Eng Build J x Bot Exp J itcnlProg Biotechnol 0:1588–1596. 101: . osrBidMater Build Constr x Bot Exp J ° eraa282. . bv r-nutilLvl n Related and Levels Pre-Industrial above C 1 101323. 31: . yooi (Tokyo) Cytologia 0 777–785. 20: . 7 3205–3221. 67: . Science lblWrigo 1.5 of Warming Global 1:707–715. 212: . 8:1613–1616. 288: . 3 459–464. 63: . ln o Biol Mol Plant ho Appl Theor ° an C 44: . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. pte-io,B,Dci,S,Brsen . n aeesy .(09 rhtcueadFooeei in Florogenesis and Architecture (2019) R. Kamenetsky, and Plants. sativa N., Cannabis Diversity Bernstein, Female Genetic S., of Duchin, Assessment B., (2017) Germplasm. Spitzer-Rimon, A. Cannabis Bombarely, Iranian and in S.A., Structure Salami, crops. Population sativa. D.C., cannabinoid and Haak, Cannabis R., in and Fatahi, Phenotypes seed A., Cannabinoid Soorni, hemp (1973) H.D. Cannabis Beckstead, giant and to E., Small, key the Evol germplasm: Human Crop Dwarf to Resour Relation (2018) in E. Hemp) Small, (Marijuana, sativa Cannabis of Classification of and perspectives Utilization. Evolution future (2015) and E. state Small, current The biology. (2018) cancer A. Nowak, in and Tetrahy-cannabinoids R., (2005) S storage lomski, J., Y. the Zeyland, Shoyama, Sledzi´nski, into P., secreted and trichomes. is S., psychoactivity, glandular marijuana the Morimoto, controlling of Y., enzyme cavity Ishikawa, of the synthase, Y., expression acid Tanaka, heterologous drocannabinolic F., and Taura, al. S., cloning et L. Sirikantaramas, molecular sativa Yukihiro, Cannabis Shoyama, psychoactivity: from Y., synthase marijuana Wada, acid controlling Y., Delta1-tetrahydrocannabinolic Ishikawa, gene Yoshinari, The Shoyama, (2004) S., Morimoto, S., Sirikantaramas, and Structure Psychoactivity (2012) the al. Controlling sativa. et Enzyme Cannabis S., the of Arai, Synthase, F., (THCA) Taura, Acid [?]1-Tetrahydrocannabinolic A., Takeuchi, of Function K., Kurihara, Arabidopsis: T., in Tamada, flowering Yoshinari, integration. Shoyama, photoperiodic signal and for clock hemp-lime Circadian Hub (2017) a experimental T. is Imaizumi, an CONSTANS and of A., Kubota, performance J.S., Hygrothermal Shim, (2012) P. Walker, in and signaling M., building. systemic Lawrence, and A., competence Shea, meristem repressing by vernalization of Kr to F., sequence Arabidopsis. Fornara, response Genome C., flowering (2010) Vincent, a al. F., Turck, confers et Y., W., He, Nelson, I., T., Searle, The Mitros, domestication: J., crop Ma, soybean. and J., palaeopolyploid Schlueter, genes the S.B., MADS-box Cannon, (2018) J., R. Schmutz, Melzer, and traits. in A., all Kennedy, determination of jack S., sex sativa. Cannabis Pan, and (2020b) S., ethylene P.F. Schilling, air: McCabe, the and R., in Melzer, is S., Love Schilling, (2020a) R. Melzer, Genetic and pepo. The Hemp. P.F., Cucurbita in (2015) Sex McCabe, of al. S., Reversal Schilling, the et on Daylight L., of Length Butler, Relative 323–334. J., of 4: Influence Vidmar, The (1923) D., J.H. Schaffner, Hudson, Hemp. K.M., and Gardner, Marijuana of J.M., Formation Structure Complex Stout, GIGANTEA J., and Arabidopsis. FKF1 Sawler, in on (2007) Measurement Back T. Day-Length Imaizumi, Spotlight for and the Required S.A., Putting Kay, Is (2016) D.A., Nusinow, T. M., Holland, Sawa, and M., Sack, Cultures. R., Suspension Fischer, Plant R., Abranches, R.B., Santos, ´ osrBidMater Build Constr o Rev Bot ee Dev Genes x Bot Exp J x Bot Exp J 5 1071–1107. 65: . o Biol Mol J 1 189–294. 81: . 0 898–912. 20: . 1 4–6. 71: . 9 1447–1469. 69: . rn ln Sci Plant Front 6 270–275. 36: . Nature 2:96–105. 423: . acrMed Cancer rn ln Sci Plant Front ln elPhysiol Cell Plant LSONE PLOS 6:178–183. 463: . 7. . :765–775. 7: . ln Physiol Plant 0 e0133292. 10: . 0 350. 10: . 42 6 1578–1582. 46: . br . ta.(06 h rncito atrFLC factor transcription The (2006) al. et S., ¨ ober, Science 7:5–15. 173: . c Rep Sci 1:261–266. 318: . :1–10. 7: . ilChem Biol J urBiol Curr 0 R8–R9. 30: . 7:39767–39774. 279: . Nature 4:147–148. 245: . Ecology Genet . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aot,S,Tn,E,Arhm . rga,T,Kpzgo,A,Mle,R,e l 22)Epigenetics: (2020) al. et R., Melzer, A., Kapazoglou, breeding. T., crop Krugman, climate-smart indoor E., in illicit applications Abraham, of possible quality E., and Tani, yield S., determining Varotto, Factors (2011) production. N. spp.) Meert, (Cannabis and cannabis P., Damme, Van W., Vanhove, optimization. media by production different two in of characterization Cannabinoids hensive of Determination M (Cannabaceae). D.A., Quantitative L. Ullisch, (1978) Sativa P.G. Cannabis of Mahlberg, Trichomes and Glandular Individual J.K., Hemphill, LOCUS J.C., FLOWERING Florigen: Turner, of Identity and Stage. Regulation Center (2008) Moves G. DevelopmentT Coupland, and (2020) F., al. Fornara, F., et Turck, in J.L., chemotype Crawford, cannabinoid R.L., and sex Wilk, 213–222. for C.H., 12: markers Carlson, genetic Netherlands. A.R., of the validation Cala, in and cultivation G.M., cannabis Stack, indoor J.A., illicit Toth, of Yield (2006) al. J. Sci Forensic Thissen, et a and J C., S., (GWPCARE4): Ribot, Joshi, syndrome M., Lennox-Gastaut S.R., Toonen, trial. with Benbadis, 3 associated phase M., seizures placebo-controlled Mazurkiewicz-Beldzinska, double-blind, with the randomised, patients J.A., of in French, Diversification Cannabidiol E.D., and (2018) Marsh, Origin E.A., Underlying Mechanisms Thiele, Molecular (2007) R. Flower. Melzer, Angiosperm for and classification IV. Group APG G., Phylogeny plants: Theissen, Angiosperm flowering the of of production families update and Large-scale An orders (2015) (2016) the al. Group et experience. Phylogeny Y., protalix Angiosperm Nataf, culture-the The L., cell Fux, plant I., in Ruderfer, proteins T., pharmaceutical Kizhner, of A., Shulman, Y., ACID.Tekoah, CANNABIDIOLIC TO Cannabidiolic-acid ACID of CANNABIGEROLIC Characterization Chem OF and OXIDOCYCLIZATION Purification THE (1996) for ZES Y. Pan-genomics Shoyama, Exploiting and and from Synthase Exploring S., (2019) Morimoto, D. F., Jordan, Taura, and leaf R., Henry, L.) E., sativa Improvement. Mace, (Cannabis Crop X., bio-economically Hemp Zhao, a (2017) Y., as Tao, hemp X. for Yin, implications and temperature: and T.J., crop. content Stomph, sustainable nitrogen to S., relation Amaducci, in P.C., photosynthesis Struik, response. K., flowering Tang, of category third The flowering: 4934. Stress-induced sequences. (2016) ndhF rosids: K. and Urticalean Takeno, (2002) trnL-F, al. rbcL, et on M., based Zjhra, 1531–1546. E., phylogenetics 89: Conti, and et M., ancestry, Taxus Nepokroeff, rosid M., of J.C., circumscription, Pires, responses Grech-Baran, J., Morawetz, metabolic M., K.J., on Sytsma, Pilarek, effects P., system. elicitor-based culture of Rokicki, two-phase Comparison perfluorodecalin-supported M., Gawe (2019) l, W., al. Rymaszewski, K., Syk lowska-Baranek, 7:17411–17416. 271: . 1 1050–1054. 51: . anbssativa Cannabis le,CA,Miam . ichff . ciree,A,Shlbr,S,e l 21)Compre- (2012) al. et S., Schillberg, A., Schiermeyer, J., Kirchhoff, S., Maibaum, C.A., uller, ¨ C Bioenergy GCB o Plant Mol n Bot Ann nuRvPatBiol Plant Rev Annu 0:603–619. 100: . 2 156–169. 12: . . ICEIA NLSSO OE NYETA CATALY- THAT ENZYME NOVEL A OF ANALYSIS BIOCHEMICAL L.: :1573–1587. 9: . .Boc.Bioeng. Biosci. J. oescSiInt Sci Forensic ioin tabacum Nicotiana 9 573–594. 59: . o inSoc Linn J Bot 43 x Bot Exp J 1:242–248. 113: ln elRep Cell Plant 1:158–163. 212: . actLn Engl Lond Lancet ellnslast obe F n Aprotein HA and GFP doubled to leads lines cell eraa188. . 8:1–20. 181: . 8 85–99. 38: . mJBot J Am anbssativa Cannabis ln itcnl J. Biotechnol. Plant 9:1085–1096. 391: . . × x Bot Exp J ei ar ot in roots hairy media L. C Bioenergy GCB 3 1199–1208. 13: 7 4925– 67: . mJBot J Am Biol J . . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. i,T,Zeg .F,Lu . eg . hu .M,Yn,Q-. ta.(05 eNv ln Genome Plant Novo De (2015) al. et Q.-Y., thaliana. Yang, Arabidopsis of Y.-M., Study Zhou, Case C., A Peng, Interactions: Chromatin S., on Liu, Based photoperiodic J.-F., Assembly regulates Zheng, that T., E1 cloning Positional locus Xie, (2012) maturity al. soybean et for H., basis Zhai, H., molecular by flowering. Nakashima, the cultures Y., reveal cell Tsubokura, characterization chinensis T., Taxus and Yamada, in S., Watanabe, release extraction. Z., and solvent Xia, production situ plant taxol in of and among Enhancement jasmonate greatly (2003) methyl vary L. ultrasound, substitution Lin, nucleotide and of J., Wu, Rates (1987) DNAs. P.M. nuclear Cannabi- Sharp, and (2015) chloroplast, al. and mitochondrial, et W.H., Meta-analysis. A.V., Li, and Hernandez, K.H., Review S., Wolfe, Duffy, Systematic M., A Nisio, Use: Medical Di for S., noids Deshpande, R.F., Wolff, In P.F., Plants. Whiting, Flowering Re- Dioecious in Green Determination Belated Sex A of Genetics Mechanism (2016) Development. The G.J. Cultivar (1958) Fast-Track M. King, Westergaard, to and R., Resources Stanger, Genetic L., Gene Virtual 7. Liu, (2015) Cannabis: T.J., al. for Rose, et volution T., E.L., Treiber, Shapter, Z., M.T., in Welling, Mehmedic, content M.A., drug ElSohly, affecting divergence K.J., producing and for Craft, duplication culture J.P., cell Wenger, plant G.D., in advances Weiblen, batch: to Bench of (2010) cultures J. products. root Xu, useful hairy and in M.J., Towler, formation P.J., Greuter). Lignan Weathers, in (Cass.) (2014) involved alpinum B. ssp. Kopp, is nivale map-based and gene (Leontopodium A H., GIGANTEA Edelweiss Stuppner, (2011) the S., al. Schwaiger, that et C., Wawrosch, reveals N., Yamanaka, line S., flowering. heterozygous Sato, and residual maturity Y., a soybean Tsubokura, employing R., strategy Hideshima, cloning Z., Xia, S., Watanabe, In investigations. Polyploidy 43 (1944) No. Book H. Year concretes. Davidson, hemp–lime and of H.E., Warmke, properties thermal esta- and L.): transfer sativa Mater Moisture (Cannabis Build (2014) Pav´ıa, hemp S. and of R., infection Walker, Agrobacterium cultures. (2013) root F. hairy Ligero, of and blishment J.M., of Caba, phytophar- I., genomes of Wahby, generation chloroplast new a complete Approaching research: The Synergy (2009) (2015) maceuticals. G. N.C. Ulrich-Merzenich, and Kane, H., Wagner, and copy lupulus. Gene K.G., Humulus (2019) Keepers, and al. sativa K.H., et Cannabis White, A., Torres, sativa. D., and C.G., Cannabis Vergara, Genetic Cizek, in phytochemistry R.M., (2016) with Givens, al. associated K.G., et is Keepers, C.S., number E.L., Pauli, of Huscher, J.P., combination D., Mendieta, Vergara, a K.G., using Keepers, antibody K., for human Tools Clancy, a Genomic H., of Baker, method. production D., surface Vergara, the response for the and medium designs culture factorial suspension fractional cell BY-2 of Gr N., Vasilev, p 1–8 Elsevier. 217–281 pp. . rcNt cdSiUSA S U Sci Acad Natl Proc 4 270–276. 64: . Phytomedicine mig . iprs . ae,N,Fshr . n cileg .(03 Optimization (2013) S. Schillberg, and R., Fischer, N., Raven, A., Lipperts, U., ¨ omping, plMcoilBiotechnol Microbiol Appl p 135–139. pp. . anbssativa Cannabis 6 97–110. 16: . Genetics ln Interact Plant J . 109. . rtRvPatSci Plant Rev Crit iohnra N atA Part DNA Mitochondrial 8:395–407. 188: . 5 1339–1351. 85: . rcNt cdSiUSA S U Sci Acad Natl Proc :312–320. 8: . anbssativa Cannabis 44 5 364–377. 35: . ln itcnl J. Biotechnol. Plant plMcoilBiotechnol Microbiol Appl o PLANTS AoB Fitoterapia JAMA 7 3793–3794. 27: . . e Phytol New angeIsiuino Washington, of Institution Carnegie 1:2456–2473. 313: . 4 9054–9058. 84: . 7 219–223. 97: . 1 plz074. 11: . 0:1241–1250. 208: . 1 867–874. 11: o Plant Mol 2 151–155. 62: . rn ln Sci Plant Front :489–492. 8: . dacsin Advances Constr . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. cream-of-the-crop-biology-breeding-and-applications-of-cannabis-sativa Schilling2020_Table.pdf file Hosted cream-of-the-crop-biology-breeding-and-applications-of-cannabis-sativa Schilling2020_Table.xlsx file Hosted 1 Table Tables and THCA of relationship structure-function of Elucidation (2018) L. F. sativa Cannabis Stehle, from and synthase O., CBDA Kayser, crops. B., (CuGenDB): cucurbit Zirpel, Database of Genomics genomics Cucurbit (2019) functional al. well-supported and et a S., comparative Guo, provides D1136. for C., analysis Jiao, portal H., Multi-gene central Sun, (2011) a Y., Bai, T. S., Wu, Yi, Y., and Zheng, Adap- D., Latitudinal Li, genome (2018) Y., Rosales. apple al. Yang, of L. high-quality et phylogeny D.E., sativa A R., Cannabis Soltis, Guo, of (2019) S., Origins E.M.J., Zhang, al. the Salentijn, Into et L.M., Insights Trindade, C.M., Genetic H., Richards, and colour. Guo, tation fruit Y., X., red Chen, Gao, and Q., J., retrotransposon Zhang, a Li, Cannabaceae. of of X., association characteristics Han, the Plastome reveals J., (2018) assembly Hu, D. L., Li, and Zhang, soybean. T., in Yi, repressor M.J., flowering Moore, a Divers as J., functions Jin, and H., E1 Zhang, by regulated positively is Antidepressant-like T, (2010) LOCUS receptors. S.R.L. 5-HT1A L Joca, of H., involvement and Zhai, possible Guimar˜aes, F.S., mice: F.A., in cannabidiol Moreira, of Cannabi- C., Underlying effects Networks Biojone, Gene T.V., (2019) B.M. Zanelati, Activates Cannabis. Lange, CONSTANS in and (2016) Accumulation A., Terpenoid Smith, al. and N., Srividya, et noid I., S.J., Lange, Yoo, J.J., Promote Zager, to S.M., T Hong, LOCUS FLOWERING J.H., Arabidopsis. through Lee, in 1 Flowering CONSTANS J., OF OVEREXPRESSION Kim, phyloge- OF Molecular K.S., SUPPRESSOR (2013) Chung, T.-S. four Yi, S.K., and in Yoo, D.-Z., Cannabaceae. variation Li, of Genetic A., evolution Sattarian, character (2013) F.T., and al. Bakker, netics R., et soybean. Velzen, van S., of M.-Q., Watanabe, responses Yang, Y., post-flowering PHYA-regulated Tsubokura, and Biol F., insensitivity Plant Kong, BMC photoperiod B., affects Liu, genes Z., maturity Xu, M., Xu, 0 127–137. 40: . umr ftecretyavailable currently the of Summary . ,S,Lag . u . hn,X,Lu . ta.(04 mT,ahmlgo FLOWERING of homolog a GmFT4, (2014) al. et B., Liu, X., Zhang, H., Wu, S., Liang, S., u, ¨ 3 1–14. 13: . o hlgntEvol Phylogenet Mol ln Physiol Plant vial at available vial at available 3:770–778. 139: . Biotechnol J https://authorea.com/users/360584/articles/483690-the- https://authorea.com/users/360584/articles/483690-the- 0 21–28. 60: . Cannabis Taxon ln Physiol Plant 45 2 473–485. 62: . 8:17–26. 284: . eoeassemblies. genome 8:1877–1897. 180: . rn ln Sci Plant Front rJPharmacol J Br a Commun Nat uli cd Res Acids Nucleic :1876. 9: . 0 1494. 10: . 5:122–128. 159: . LSONE PLoS 7 D1128– 47: . Plant 9. . Posted on Authorea 1 Oct 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160139712.25104053/v2 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. the-cream-of-the-crop-biology-breeding-and-applications-of-cannabis-sativa Schilling2020_SupplTables.pdf file Hosted Available 3. Table Supplementary Available archive. 2. Table each Supplementary for lengths Chromosome 1. Table Supplementary Material Supplementary vial at available Cannabis Cannabis https://authorea.com/users/360584/articles/483690- raelrgnm assemblies. genome organellar eunigdt rmteNB euneread sequence NCBI the from data sequencing 46 Cannabis eoeassembly. genome