Plant Omics Data Standardization: Bridging Foundational Research to Clinical Translation

Abstract

The rapid expansion of plant omics technologies generates vast, complex datasets, yet the lack of standardized data and metadata practices severely hinders data interoperability, reproducibility, and secondary use. This article addresses the critical challenge of standardizing plant omics data by exploring the foundational principles of data interoperability, showcasing cutting-edge methodological applications like foundation models and multimodal integration, and providing practical troubleshooting strategies for experimental design and data heterogeneity. Targeting researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, we present a comparative analysis of existing frameworks and tools, emphasizing how robust standardization can accelerate the translation of plant-based discoveries into clinical and biomedical innovations.

The Why and What: Foundational Principles and Urgent Needs in Plant Omics Standardization

Inconsistent data standards represent a critical gap in plant omics research, creating significant barriers to data sharing, integration, and reproducibility. This technical support center addresses the specific challenges researchers face when working with plant multi-omics data, providing practical solutions to enhance data quality, interoperability, and ultimately, research progress.

Troubleshooting Guides

Guide 1: Resolving Missing Data in Multi-Omics Integration

Problem: High percentages of missing data across different omics layers (e.g., transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics) preventing effective data integration and analysis.

Background: Missing data is a fundamental challenge in multi-omics integration because all biomolecules are not measured in all samples. This occurs due to cost constraints, instrument sensitivity limitations, or other experimental factors [1]. In proteomics alone, 20-50% of potential peptide observations may be missing [1].

Step-by-Step Solution:

• Classify Your Missing Data Mechanism:

  • Missing Completely at Random (MCAR): Missingness does not depend on observed or unobserved variables
  • Missing at Random (MAR): Missingness depends on observed variables but not unobserved data
  • Missing Not at Random (MNAR): Missingness depends on the unobserved measurements themselves [1]

• Select Appropriate Handling Methods Based on Classification:

  • For MCAR/MAR: Use imputation methods (k-nearest neighbors, matrix factorization)
  • For MNAR: Implement missing data algorithms that account for the missingness mechanism
  • Consider recent AI and statistical learning approaches designed for partially observed samples [1]

• Validate Your Approach:

  • Compare multiple imputation methods
  • Assess impact on downstream analysis
  • Document all handling procedures thoroughly

Prevention Strategies:

• Standardize sample preparation protocols across omics types
• Implement quality control checkpoints throughout data generation
• Use standardized reference materials where available

Guide 2: Fixing Inconsistent Metadata Submission

Problem: Metadata (data about data) is incomplete, inconsistently formatted, or uses conflicting terminologies, making data discovery, integration, and reinterpretation difficult [2] [3].

Background: Metadata enhances data discovery, integration, and interpretation, enabling reproducibility, reusability, and secondary analysis. However, metadata sharing remains hindered by perceptual and technical barriers [2].

Step-by-Step Solution:

• Adopt Minimum Information Standards:

  • Implement MIAME (Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment) for gene expression data [4]
  • Use MIAPE (Minimum Information About a Proteomics Experiment) for proteomics studies [4]
  • Apply MIxS (Minimum Information about any (x) Sequence) standards for genomic, metagenomic, and marker gene sequences [3]

• Follow Structured Metadata Collection:

• Utilize Controlled Vocabularies and Ontologies:

  • Use Plant Ontology (PO) for plant structures and growth stages
  • Implement Plant Trait Ontology (TO) for phenotypic characteristics
  • Apply Gene Ontology (GO) for functional annotation

Validation Checklist:

• All required metadata fields completed
• Consistent formatting applied throughout
• Controlled vocabularies used where available
• Sample relationships clearly documented
• Experimental conditions fully described

Guide 3: Correcting Data Formatting Inconsistencies

Problem: Data from different sources or platforms use incompatible formats, structures, or naming conventions, preventing effective data integration and comparison.

Background: Data standardization transforms data from various sources into a consistent format, ensuring comparability and interoperability across different datasets and systems [5] [6].

Step-by-Step Solution:

• Establish Standardization Rules:

  • Define consistent naming conventions (e.g., snake_case for all identifiers)
  • Specify value formatting (YYYY-MM-DD for dates, ISO codes for currencies)
  • Determine unit conversions (standardize measurements to SI units)
  • Implement identifier resolution and mapping [6]

• Apply Standardization Techniques:

  • Data Type Standardization: Ensure consistent data types (date, numeric, text)
  • Textual Standardization: Apply case conversion, punctuation removal, whitespace trimming
  • Numeric Standardization: Standardize units, precision, and measurement types [5]

• Implement Automated Validation:

  • Use schema enforcement at data entry points
  • Apply validation rules during transformation processes
  • Conduct regular quality assessment checks

Common Standardization Scenarios:

Table: Data Standardization Techniques for Plant Omics

Data Type	Common Inconsistencies	Standardization Approach
Gene Identifiers	Different database sources (TAIR, UniProt, NCBI)	Map to standardized nomenclature using official databases
Sample Dates	Various formats (DD/MM/YYYY, MM-DD-YY)	Convert to ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD)
Concentration Units	Mixed units (μM, mM, ng/μL)	Standardize to molar concentrations (M) with scientific notation
Plant Genotypes	Different naming conventions	Use established stock center designations
Geographical Data	Various coordinate formats	Convert to decimal degrees with WGS84 datum

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: What are the minimum metadata requirements for plant omics experiments?

Answer: Minimum metadata requirements ensure your data is findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR). For plant omics, essential metadata includes [4] [3]:

• Project Information: Project name, description, objectives, and contributors
• Sample Details: Plant species, variety, genotype, tissue type, developmental stage, growth conditions
• Experimental Design: Replication structure, control types, experimental variables
• Technical Specifications: Instrument platform, protocols, parameters, data processing methods
• Data Acquisition: Sequencing type, read length, coverage depth, quality metrics

The Genomic Standards Consortium's MIxS (Minimum Information about any (x) Sequence) checklist provides specific standards for genomic, metagenomic, and marker gene sequences [3].

FAQ 2: How can we handle missing data in multi-omics studies without compromising statistical integrity?

Answer: The appropriate handling method depends on classifying your missing data mechanism [1]:

Table: Missing Data Handling Strategies

Mechanism	Description	Recommended Methods
MCAR (Missing Completely at Random)	Missingness is unrelated to any variables	Complete case analysis, simple imputation, maximum likelihood
MAR (Missing at Random)	Missingness depends on observed data but not unobserved values	Multiple imputation, sophisticated imputation algorithms
MNAR (Missing Not at Random)	Missingness depends on the unobserved values themselves	Selection models, pattern mixture models, Bayesian approaches

For multi-omics integration, recent AI and statistical learning methods specifically designed for partially observed samples can capture complex, non-linear interactions while handling missing data [1]. Always document your missing data handling approach thoroughly and assess its impact on downstream analyses.

FAQ 3: What are the consequences of not following data standards in collaborative plant omics research?

Answer: Inconsistent data standards create multiple negative consequences:

• Reduced Reproducibility: Inability to reproduce or verify experimental results
• Inefficient Resource Use: Significant time spent cleaning and reformatting data instead of analysis
• Limited Data Reuse: Inability to leverage existing datasets for new discoveries or meta-analyses
• Impaired Collaboration: Difficulties sharing data across research groups or institutions
• Regulatory Challenges: Complications in regulatory submissions for crop development or drug discovery [7] [8]

Following established standards ultimately accelerates research progress by making data more valuable and usable across the scientific community.

FAQ 4: How do we balance the need for standardized data with rapidly evolving omics technologies?

Answer: Balancing standardization with technological evolution requires a flexible, iterative approach [3]:

• Focus on Core Principles: Implement FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) as a foundation
• Adopt Modular Standards: Use standards that can evolve with technology while maintaining core metadata requirements
• Implement Version Control: Track standard versions and updates in your data documentation
• Participate in Community Efforts: Engage with standards organizations to help shape evolving specifications

This approach maintains data utility while accommodating methodological advances.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Materials for Plant Omics Research

Reagent/Material	Function	Standardization Considerations
DNA Extraction Kits	High-quality nucleic acid isolation for genomic analyses	Use kits with validated performance metrics; document lot numbers and protocols
RNA Preservation Solutions	Stabilize RNA for transcriptomic studies	Record stabilization time; use consistent storage conditions (-80°C)
Reference Standards	Quality control and cross-platform normalization	Implement certified reference materials; document source and usage
Internal Standards (Metabolomics)	Quantification in mass spectrometry-based metabolomics	Use stable isotope-labeled compounds; record concentrations and vendors
Protein Ladders	Molecular weight calibration in proteomics	Document manufacturer, catalog numbers, and lot information
Bioinformatics Pipelines	Data processing and analysis	Version control; parameter documentation; containerization for reproducibility
tau-IN-2	tau-IN-2, MF:C20H20Cl2N4S, MW:419.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Ack1 inhibitor 1	Ack1 inhibitor 1, MF:C39H40F3N7O4, MW:727.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Experimental Workflow for Standardized Plant Multi-Omics

This workflow emphasizes standardization at every stage, from initial experimental design through final data sharing, addressing the critical gap that inconsistent data standards create in plant omics research.

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Metadata and CDE Issues

Problem	Possible Cause	Solution
Incomplete metadata missing critical phenotypes [9]	Metadata not consolidated from primary sources; scattered information [9] [10]	Create standardized metadata templates (e.g., Google Sheet) with a data dictionary; collate information post-generation [10].
Data cannot be pooled or compared across studies [11] [12]	Use of custom, non-standard variables instead of Common Data Elements (CDEs) [12]	Search NIH CDE Repository or domain-specific repositories for existing CDEs; reuse them directly in study design [11] [12].
Public repository submissions are rejected or returned	Metadata does not follow repository-specific required formats or standards [10] [13]	Refine metadata to required standards (e.g., MIxS for genomics, CF for climate); standardize column data and include units [10] [14].
Difficulties in multi-omics data integration [15]	Data from different omics technologies have different measurement units, scales, and formats [15]	Preprocess data: normalize, remove technical biases, convert to common scale/unit, and format into a unified samples-by-feature matrix [15].
Secondary analysis of data is impossible [9]	Essential sample-level metadata exists only in publication text, not in structured repository fields [9]	Deposit all sample-level metadata in public repositories using structured fields, not just in manuscript text or supplements [9].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the core components of data sharing standards for omics data? Data sharing standards for omics data consist of four main components [4]:

• Experiment Description Standards: "Minimum information" guidelines (e.g., MIAME, MIAPE) that specify the details needed to interpret and reproduce an experiment [4].
• Data Exchange Standards: Standardized data formats and models (e.g., MAGE-ML) that enable communication between organizations and software tools [4].
• Terminology Standards: Ontologies and controlled vocabularies (e.g., MGED Ontology, NCI Thesaurus) that provide consistent terms to describe experiments and data [4] [11].
• Experiment Execution Standards: Guidelines for physical reference materials, data analysis, and quality metrics to ensure comparability of results [4].

Q2: What is the practical difference between metadata and a Common Data Element (CDE)?

• Metadata is a broad term for all contextual information that describes, explains, and makes it easier to retrieve and use a dataset. It is "data about data" [13]. For an omics sample, this includes everything from collection time and location to sequencing protocols and analysis software versions [10].
• A Common Data Element (CDE) is a specific, standardized type of metadata. A CDE rigidly defines a single variable by binding a precise question to a set of allowed responses and is designed for reuse across multiple studies to ensure consistency [11] [12]. For example, a CDE would not just define a variable as "Sex," but would specify the exact question text and permissible values like "Male," "Female," and "Unknown," often linked to ontology codes [12].

Q3: Our study involves a rare plant species. What should we do if we cannot find existing CDEs for our specific needs? If no suitable CDEs are available after checking general (e.g., NIH CDE Repository) and domain-specific sources, you can create new elements. It is critical to document every change or new element creation clearly in a data dictionary or codebook. To support interoperability, annotate your new elements with ontology codes (e.g., from the Gene Ontology) and consider sharing your contributions with relevant standards bodies to support future community use [12].

Q4: What are the most critical metadata fields to include for plant omics data to ensure reusability? Based on an audit of over 61,000 studies, the most critical metadata attributes are organism, tissue type, age, and sex (where applicable) [9]. For plants, strain or cultivar information is also essential [9]. These fields represent the principal axes of biological heterogeneity and are mandated by most minimum-information standards. Ensuring these are complete and machine-readable in a public repository, not just in the publication text, is vital for data reusability [9].

Q5: How can I ensure my integrated multi-omics resource will be useful to other researchers? Design your integrated resource from the perspective of the end-user, not the data curator [15]. Before and during development, create real use-case scenarios. Pretend you are an analyst trying to solve a specific biological problem with your resource. This process will help you identify what is missing, what is difficult to use, and what could be improved, leading to a more functional and widely adopted resource [15].

Quantitative Data on Metadata Completeness

Metadata Availability in Public Repositories (2025 Study)

A 2025 study systematically assessed the completeness of public metadata accompanying omics studies in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) [9].

Metric	Value	Implication
Overall Phenotype Availability	74.8% (average across 253 studies)	Over 25% of critical metadata are omitted, hindering reproducibility [9].
Availability in Repositories vs. Publications	62% (repositories) vs. 3.5% (publication text)	Public repositories contain significantly more metadata than publication text alone [9].
Studies with Complete Metadata	11.5%	Only a small minority of studies share all relevant phenotypes [9].
Studies with Poor Metadata (<40%)	37.9%	A large portion of studies share less than half of the crucial metadata [9].
Human vs. Non-Human Studies	Non-human studies have 16.1% more metadata available	Studies with non-human samples are more likely to include complete metadata [9].

Key Elements of a Common Data Element (CDE)

Component	Description	Example from the NIH CDE Repository [12]
Data Element Label	A standard name for the variable.	CMS Discharge Disposition
Question Text	The exact question or prompt shown to the user.	"What was the patient's CMS discharge status code?"
Definition	A precise explanation of the variable's meaning.	"The CMS code specifying the status of the patient after being discharged from the hospital."
Data Type	The format of the expected response.	Value List
Permissible Values (PVs)	The standardized set of allowed responses, their definitions, and links to ontology concepts.	Home (A person's permanent place of residence; NCIt Code C18002), Hospice, etc.

Experimental Protocols for Standardization

Protocol 1: Submitting Omics Data to a Public Repository

This protocol outlines the steps for preparing and submitting omics data and metadata to a public repository like the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) or the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), based on guidelines from NOAA and other sources [10].

• Plan and Collate Metadata: Before data generation, plan what metadata will be captured. Use a standardized template (e.g., a spreadsheet with a data dictionary) for consistent recording. Collate metadata from primary sources (e.g., lab notebooks) and associate it with sample IDs as soon as possible [10].
• Refine and Standardize: Check for errors and fill in missing metadata using standardized language for missing values. Standardize the data in each column to a consistent format as defined in your data dictionary. Ensure attribute names are well-defined and include units where applicable [10].
• Choose the Correct Repository: Identify the appropriate repository for your data type (e.g., NCBI for nucleotide sequences, specialized repositories for metabolomics). Consult resources like FAIRsharing.org for guidance [10] [13].
• Format for Submission: Format your metadata according to the repository's specific requirements and relevant community standards (e.g., the Genomics Standards Consortium's MIxS standards) [10].
• Submit Data: Submit the data and metadata by the repository's deadline, which is often before a paper is published or within one to two years of a project's end date [10].

Protocol 2: Applying Common Data Elements in a New Study

This protocol describes how to identify and apply CDEs when designing a new data collection effort, such as a plant phenotyping study or patient registry [12].

• Clarify Research Context: Define your research domain (e.g., plant biology, rare diseases), the specific disease or population, and the types of data you are collecting (e.g., clinical, phenotypic, omics). This will help target the right CDE repositories [12].
• Search for Existing CDEs: First, check for any regulatory or domain-specific CDE requirements. Second, search general repositories like the NIH CDE Repository. Use filters to narrow down results to your research area [12].
• Evaluate and Select CDEs: For each candidate CDE, check its definition, permissible values, and whether it is annotated with ontology codes. Prefer CDEs that are machine-readable and semantically aligned [12].
• Reuse or Adapt: If a CDE fully meets your needs, reuse it directly. If minor adaptations are necessary, document all modifications clearly in a data dictionary. Be aware that adaptations may reduce comparability with other datasets [12].
• Annotate and Document: Preserve or add ontology codes to CDEs to enable machine-readable alignment. Your final dataset will likely include a mix of reused CDEs and new, context-specific variables; your codebook should clearly distinguish between them [12].

Diagrams for Standardization Workflows and Relationships

Data Standardization Components

Omics Data Sharing Workflow

Multi-omics Data Integration Process

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function
Common Data Elements (CDEs)	Standardized variables with defined questions and responses that ensure consistent data collection and enable cross-study comparisons [11] [12].
Controlled Vocabularies & Ontologies	Predefined lists of terms (e.g., Gene Ontology, NCI Thesaurus) that standardize terminology, ensuring that all researchers describe the same concept with the same word, which is crucial for interoperability [11] [13].
Minimum Information Standards (e.g., MIAME, MIAPE)	Guidelines that specify the minimum amount of meta-data required to unambiguously interpret and reproduce an experiment, often required by journals and public repositories [4].
Metadata Templates & Data Dictionaries	Pre-formatted sheets (e.g., Google Sheets, Excel) with defined attribute columns and formats, used to capture metadata consistently from the start of a project [10].
Sample Metadata	Contextual information about the primary sample, including collection time, location, type, and environmental conditions, which puts the omics data into context [10].
HL-8	HL-8, MF:C57H59F2N11O9S2, MW:1144.3 g/mol
MI-1063	MI-1063, MF:C30H32Cl2FN3O4, MW:588.5 g/mol

In contemporary plant research, omics technologies—including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics—have revolutionized our capacity to understand biological systems at unprecedented scales. These approaches generate vast, complex datasets collectively termed "big data" due to their significant volume, diversity, and rapid accumulation [16]. However, the tremendous potential of this data remains constrained without robust frameworks for interoperability—the ability of different systems and organizations to exchange, interpret, and use data seamlessly. The interoperability imperative addresses critical scientific needs: enabling secondary data analysis that maximizes value from expensive-to-generate datasets, facilitating cross-study comparisons that reveal broader biological patterns, and supporting reproducible research through standardized methodologies and data descriptions. This technical support center provides essential guidance for researchers navigating the practical challenges of plant omics data interoperability, with troubleshooting guides and FAQs designed to address specific experimental hurdles within the broader context of standardizing plant omics data and metadata research.

Understanding Data Interoperability: Core Concepts

What is Interoperability in Plant Omics Research?

Interoperability in plant omics encompasses technical, semantic, and organizational dimensions that together enable meaningful data sharing and reuse. Technical interoperability ensures that data formats and structures are compatible across different computational platforms and analysis tools. Semantic interoperability guarantees that the meaning of data is preserved through standardized vocabularies, ontologies, and metadata schemas. Organizational interoperability establishes the policies, governance frameworks, and collaborative structures that support data exchange. Together, these dimensions create an ecosystem where data generated from diverse plant species, experimental conditions, and technological platforms can be integrated for secondary analysis, accelerating discoveries in plant biology, crop improvement, and drug development from plant-based compounds.

The FAIR Principles in Practice

The FAIR Guiding Principles—Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability—provide a foundational framework for interoperability. Plant Reactome, a comprehensive plant pathway knowledgebase, exemplifies FAIR implementation by providing curated reference pathways from rice and gene-orthology-based pathway projections to 129 additional species [17]. This resource enables users to analyze and visualize diverse omics data within the rich context of plant pathways while upholding global data standards. Implementing FAIR principles requires both technical solutions and researcher awareness, as even well-structured data fails to deliver value if researchers cannot locate, access, or interpret it effectively.

Technical Support Center: FAQs and Troubleshooting Guides

Data Generation and Experimental Design

FAQ: What are the key considerations for designing plant omics experiments to ensure future data sharing?

Answer: Thoughtful experimental design establishes the foundation for interoperable data. Key considerations include:

• Standards Selection: Identify and implement relevant community standards before data generation, including ontologies for plant structures (PO), plant traits (TO), and chemical entities (ChEBI).
• Metadata Documentation: Capture comprehensive experimental metadata using standardized templates, describing growth conditions, treatments, sampling procedures, and analytical protocols in sufficient detail to enable replication.
• Controls and Replicates: Include appropriate positive/negative controls and biological replicates that meet community standards for statistical power.
• Data Formats: Select non-proprietary, community-accepted file formats (e.g., mzML for metabolomics, BAM/SAM for genomics) that support long-term accessibility.

Troubleshooting Guide: Addressing Polyploid Complexity in Genomic Data

Challenge: Genome assembly and annotation of polyploid plants presents distinctive difficulties due to complex genome architectures with highly similar sequences, repetitive regions, and multiple homologous copies [18].

Solution Strategy:

• Sequencing Approach: Utilize highly accurate long-read sequencing technologies (e.g., PacBio HiFi) to distinguish between haplotypes [18].
• Specialized Assembly: For autopolyploids, employ specialized algorithms like ALLHiC, though note limitations for autopolyploid plants may necessitate experimental approaches such as sequencing large selfing populations [18].
• Epigenetic Considerations: Account for complex epigenetic regulation in polyploids, including DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNAs that significantly influence gene expression [18].

Data Processing and Analysis

FAQ: How can I ensure my processed plant omics data remains interoperable for secondary analysis?

Answer: Maintain interoperability during data processing through:

• Workflow Documentation: Use reproducible workflow systems (Nextflow, Snakemake) that capture all processing steps, parameters, and software versions.
• Version Control: Implement version control for both data and code using systems like Git, with persistent identifiers for specific analysis states.
• Parameter Transparency: Document all filtering thresholds, normalization methods, and statistical cutoffs with clear justifications.
• Standardized Outputs: Generate outputs in standard formats with sufficient metadata to trace back to raw data.

Table 1: Mass Spectrometry Platforms for Plant Metabolomics

Platform/Technique	Resolution	Key Applications	Advantages	Limitations
GC-MS [19]	Varies	Volatile compound analysis, primary metabolism	Quantitative, standardized spectral libraries	Requires derivatization, limited to volatile/thermostable compounds
LC-MS [19]	High to ultra-high	Secondary metabolites, non-volatile compounds	Broad compound coverage, minimal sample preparation	Complex data interpretation, limited standardized libraries
MALDI-MSI [19]	Spatial	Tissue-specific metabolite localization	Spatial distribution information, minimal sample preparation	Semi-quantitative challenges, complex sample preparation

Troubleshooting Guide: Managing Multi-omics Data Integration

Challenge: Integrating diverse omics data types (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics) presents significant computational and interpretive difficulties due to differing scales, structures, and biological meanings [20] [16].

Solution Strategy:

• Pathway-Centric Integration: Utilize established knowledgebases like Plant Reactome as a unifying framework, enabling projection of orthology-based pathways across species and providing context for multi-omics data visualization [17].
• Statistical Approaches: Implement multivariate methods (canonical correlation analysis, regularized canonical correlation analysis) specifically designed for heterogeneous data integration.
• Temporal Alignment: Carefully synchronize data collection timepoints across omics layers and employ temporal alignment algorithms when exact synchronization isn't feasible.

Data Sharing and Repository Submission

FAQ: What documentation is essential when submitting plant omics data to public repositories?

Answer: Comprehensive documentation enables secondary users to understand, evaluate, and properly reuse your data:

• Experimental Context: Detailed descriptions of biological materials, growth conditions, experimental treatments, and sampling procedures.
• Technical Metadata: Complete instrumentation details, platform specifications, and data generation protocols.
• Data Processing History: Transparent documentation of all transformations, from raw data to final results.
• Data Dictionary: Clear definitions for all variables, units of measurement, and coded values.
• Validation Information: Quality control metrics, normalization approaches, and any data quality issues.

Troubleshooting Guide: Addressing Incomplete Metadata

Challenge: Incomplete or inconsistent metadata severely limits data interoperability and reuse potential, particularly when integrating datasets from multiple sources or researchers.

Solution Strategy:

• Metadata Standards: Implement structured metadata collection using community-standardized schemas (ISA-Tab, MIAPPE) before experimentation begins.
• Cross-Reference: Utilize metadata repositories (MDRs) like Samply.MDR that structure data for technical processes while making syntax and semantics understandable for end users [21].
• Automated Extraction: Deploy tools that automatically extract technical metadata from instrument files to minimize manual entry errors.
• Validation Services: Use metadata validation tools provided by target repositories to identify missing or non-compliant elements before submission.

Experimental Protocols for Interoperable Plant Omics Research

Protocol: Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics Workflow

This protocol outlines a standardized approach for plant metabolomics using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), generating data amenable to secondary analysis and cross-study comparison [19].

Materials and Reagents:

• Extraction solvent (e.g., methanol:water:chloroform, 2.5:1:1)
• Internal standards (e.g., stable isotope-labeled compounds)
• LC-MS grade solvents for mobile phase preparation
• Quality control samples (pooled quality control, process blanks)

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation:
  • Harvest plant tissue using standardized procedures, immediately flash-freeze in liquid nitrogen, and store at -80°C.
  • Precisely weigh frozen tissue (e.g., 100±5 mg) and homogenize with extraction solvent containing internal standards.
  • Centrifuge at high speed (e.g., 15,000 × g, 15 min, 4°C) and transfer supernatant for analysis.

• Instrumental Analysis:

  • Utilize UHPLC system with reversed-phase column (e.g., C18, 1.7μm, 2.1×100mm).
  • Implement gradient elution with water and acetonitrile, both containing 0.1% formic acid.
  • Acquire data using high-resolution mass spectrometer (e.g., Q-TOF, Orbitrap) in both positive and negative ionization modes.
  • Incorporate quality control samples throughout the sequence to monitor instrument performance.

• Data Processing:

  • Convert raw data to open formats (e.g., mzML, mzXML) using vendor converters or ProteoWizard.
  • Perform peak detection, alignment, and integration using standardized software (e.g., XCMS, OpenMS).
  • Annotate features using authentic standards when available, or putative identifications through database matching (mass, fragmentation spectrum).
  • Export data matrix with feature intensities, sample metadata, and annotation information in standardized formats.

Troubleshooting Notes:

• Signal Drift: If quality control samples show systematic signal drift, apply quality control-based correction algorithms.
• Feature Misalignment: Adjust alignment parameters or employ retention time correction when observing poor peak alignment across samples.
• Low Annotation Rates: Supplement database searches with in-silico fragmentation prediction and apply level-based annotation confidence reporting.

Protocol: Genome Assembly for Complex Plant Genomes

This protocol provides guidance for generating high-quality genome assemblies for polyploid or highly heterozygous plant species, addressing particular challenges in complex plant genomes [22] [18].

Materials and Reagents:

• High molecular weight DNA extraction kit
• Library preparation reagents for long-read sequencing (PacBio, Nanopore)
• Hi-C library preparation kit (if pursuing chromosome-scale assembly)
• Quality assessment tools (e.g., Qubit, Nanodrop, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis)

Procedure:

• Sequencing Strategy Selection:
  • For polyploid species, prioritize long-read sequencing technologies (PacBio HiFi, Oxford Nanopore) to resolve repetitive regions and distinguish haplotypes [22].
  • Supplement with Hi-C or Omni-C data for chromosome-scale scaffolding.
  • Consider complementary short-read data for polishing, though note HiFi reads may reduce this necessity.

• Genome Assembly:

  • Employ assemblers designed for complex genomes (e.g., Hifiasm, Canu, NECAT) based on data type and genome characteristics.
  • For polyploids, utilize specialized tools (e.g., ALLHiC) for haplotype-phased assembly, noting limitations with autopolyploids [18].
  • Perform iterative polishing using high-accuracy sequences to correct errors.

• Quality Assessment and Annotation:

  • Evaluate assembly completeness using BUSCO with plant-specific lineage datasets.
  • Annotate repeats using structured approaches (e.g., EDTA pipeline) before gene prediction.
  • Predict protein-coding genes using evidence-based and ab initio approaches, integrating transcriptomic data when available.
  • Submit final assembly to public repositories (NCBI, EBI) with complete metadata.

Troubleshooting Notes:

• High Heterozygosity: If assembly exhibits excessive fragmentation due to high heterozygosity, consider specialized assemblers or alternate strategies like diploid-aware assembly.
• Repeat Resolution: If repetitive regions remain poorly assembled, target additional sequencing coverage specifically to problematic regions or employ linked-read technologies.
• Annotation Challenges: For difficult-to-annotate genomes, implement iterative annotation approaches and utilize orthogonal evidence (transcriptomes, homologous proteins).

Visualization: Workflows and Data Relationships

Plant Omics Data Interoperability Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the complete pathway from experimental design to data sharing, highlighting critical decision points that impact interoperability:

Multi-Omics Data Integration Framework

This diagram illustrates the conceptual framework for integrating diverse omics data types, highlighting both technical and biological integration points:

Essential Research Reagents and Tools

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Plant Omics Research

Reagent/Tool	Category	Primary Function	Interoperability Considerations
PacBio HiFi Reads [22]	Sequencing Technology	Generate highly accurate long reads	Enables haplotype resolution in polyploids; produces data compatible with multiple assembly tools
Plant Reactome [17]	Knowledgebase	Pathway analysis and data visualization	Provides FAIR-compliant data; enables cross-species comparisons through orthology projections
HL7 FHIR Standards [21]	Data Standard	Clinical and observational data exchange	Emerging standard for plant phenotyping data; supports semantic interoperability
Samply.MDR [21]	Metadata Repository	Metadata management and harmonization	ISO/IEC 11179-based; handles hierarchical data structures across multiple sources
mzML Format [19]	Data Format	Mass spectrometry data storage	Open, standardized format for metabolomics data; supported by multiple analysis platforms
BUSCO [22]	Quality Assessment	Genome assembly completeness evaluation	Provides standardized metrics for comparing assembly quality across different species

The interoperability of plant omics data represents both a technical challenge and a scientific imperative. As the volume and complexity of plant science data continue to grow, establishing robust frameworks for data sharing and secondary analysis becomes increasingly critical for advancing fundamental knowledge and applied outcomes in agriculture, conservation, and drug development. The guidance provided in this technical support center addresses immediate practical concerns while situating these solutions within the broader context of standardization in plant omics research. By implementing these protocols, troubleshooting strategies, and interoperability-focused practices, researchers contribute to a collaborative ecosystem where data transcends individual studies to accelerate collective understanding of plant biology. The future of plant omics research depends not only on generating data but on building the connections—technical, semantic, and collaborative—that transform isolated findings into integrated knowledge.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Genomic Data Standards

1. What is the main goal of the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC)? The GSC is an open-membership working body formed in 2005. Its primary aim is to make genomic data discoverable by enabling genomic data integration, discovery, and comparison through international community-driven standards [23].

2. What is IMMSA and who does it represent? The International Microbiome and Multi'Omics Standards Alliance (IMMSA) is an open consortium of microbiome-focused researchers from industry, academia, and government. Its members are representative experts for all major microbiological ecosystems (e.g., human/animal, built, and environmental) and from various scientific disciplines including microbiology, bioinformatics, genomics, metagenomics, proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics, epidemiology, and statistics [24].

3. What are the MIxS standards? The Minimum Information about any (x) Sequence (MIxS) standards are a set of standardized checklists for reporting contextual metadata associated with genomics studies. Developed by the GSC, they provide a unifying resource for describing the sample and sequencing information, facilitating data comparison and reuse [25] [26]. The checklists are tailored to specific environments, such as MIMARKS for marker sequences, MIMS for metagenomes, and environment-specific packages for soil, water, and host-associated samples [26].

4. Why is metadata so critical for data reuse? Missing, partial, or incorrect metadata can lead to significant repercussions and faulty conclusions about taxonomy or genetic function [25]. Standardized metadata ensures that data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR). It allows other researchers to understand the experimental context, which is vital for reproducing results and conducting new, integrated analyses [25].

5. What are common social challenges to data sharing and reuse? A key social challenge is incentivizing researchers to submit the complete breadth of metadata needed to replicate an analysis [25]. This includes attitudes and behaviors around data sharing and restricted usage, issues which can disproportionately impact early career researchers [25].

Troubleshooting Guides for Data Reproducibility

Problem: Inconsistent Results When Reusing Public Genomic Data

Problem Area	Specific Issue	Recommended Solution
Metadata	Incomplete or missing sample context [25].	Use MIxS checklists during data submission [26]. Manually curate metadata from publications if necessary [25].
Wet-Lab Methods	Laboratory methods/kits introduce bias (e.g., in taxonomic profiles) [25].	Document & report DNA extraction & sequencing kits used. Use reference materials (e.g., from NIST) to benchmark performance [27].
Data Availability	Data is in archives, but key files or access details are missing [25].	Verify data accessions in publication. Check supplementary files for processed data. Contact corresponding author.
Technical Reproducibility	Unable to run the same computational pipelines.	Use containerized software (e.g., Docker, Singularity). Share analysis code in public repositories (e.g., GitHub).

Problem: Low DNA Yield or Quality During Plant Omics Sampling

This guide adapts general principles from established molecular biology protocols to the context of plant genomics [28].

Problem	Potential Cause	Solution
Low DNA Yield	Tissue pieces too large, leading to nuclease degradation [28].	Cut tissue into the smallest possible pieces or grind with liquid nitrogen [28].
DNA Degradation	High nuclease content in some plant tissues; improper sample storage [28].	Flash-freeze samples in liquid nitrogen; store at -80°C; use stabilizing reagents [28].
Protein Contamination	Incomplete digestion of the sample [28].	Extend Proteinase K digestion time; ensure tissue is fully dissolved [28].
RNA Contamination	Too much input material inhibiting RNase A [28].	Do not exceed recommended input amount; extend lysis time [28].

Standardized Experimental Protocol: Ensuring Reusable Plant Omics Data

This protocol outlines a workflow for generating plant omics data that adheres to the standards promoted by IMMSA and the GSC, ensuring reproducibility and reusability.

Objective: To extract high-quality genomic DNA from plant tissue and prepare it for sequencing, with complete metadata documentation for public repository submission.

Materials:

• Plant tissue sample (e.g., leaf)
• Liquid Nitrogen and Mortar & Pestle
• Monarch Spin gDNA Extraction Kit (or equivalent) [28]
• Proteinase K and RNase A [28]
• MIxS Plant-Associated (MIxS - Plant-associated) checklist [26]

Methodology:

• Sample Collection & Stabilization:
  • Immediately flash-freeze the collected plant tissue in liquid nitrogen.
  • Store at -80°C if not processing immediately to prevent nuclease degradation [28].
• Tissue Disruption:
  • Grind frozen tissue to a fine powder under liquid nitrogen using a mortar and pestle. Note: Keeping tissue frozen during grinding is critical to prevent DNA degradation [28].
• Genomic DNA Extraction & Purification:
  • Follow a commercial kit's protocol (e.g., Monarch Spin gDNA Extraction Kit). Key considerations:
    • Use the recommended mass of powdered tissue to avoid column overloading or incomplete lysis [28].
    • Add Proteinase K and RNase A to the sample and mix well before adding the Cell Lysis Buffer [28].
    • For fibrous tissues, centrifuge the lysate to remove indigestible fibers before loading onto the spin column [28].
  • Elute DNA in the provided elution buffer.
• Quality Control:
  • Quantify DNA using a fluorometer and assess purity via spectrophotometry (A260/A280 and A260/A230 ratios).
  • Check DNA integrity by agarose gel electrophoresis.
• Metadata Collection - The Critical Step for Reusability:
  • Concurrently, populate the relevant MIxS Plant-Associated checklist [26]. Essential fields include:
    • Investigation type: metagenome, genome, etc.
    • Project name: Your specific project identifier.
    • Latitude and Longitude: Geographic coordinates of sample collection.
    • Collection date: When the sample was taken.
    • Sample type (e.g., leaf, root, rhizosphere).
    • Plant growth conditions: e.g., greenhouse, field, growth chamber.
    • Environmental medium: e.g., soil, air, plant-associated.
    • DNA extraction method: Document the kit and any protocol modifications.
    • Sequencing platform and method: e.g., Illumina NovaSeq, PacBio HiFi.

The following diagram illustrates the core workflow and logical relationships for creating reusable plant omics data, integrating both laboratory and computational steps with community standards.

Workflow for Reusable Plant Omics Data

Research Reagent Solutions for Standardized Omics

The following table lists key materials and resources essential for generating standardized, reproducible omics data.

Resource / Reagent	Function & Importance in Standardization
MIxS Checklists [26]	Provides the standardized framework for reporting metadata, ensuring data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR).
NIST Reference Materials (e.g., RM 8376) [27]	Benchmarked genomic DNA from multiple organisms. Used to assess performance of metagenomic sequencing workflows, enabling cross-lab comparability.
Monarch Kits / Equivalent [28]	Commercial DNA extraction kits with standardized, validated protocols that help reduce technical variability in sample preparation.
INSCD Repositories (GenBank, ENA, DDBJ) [25] [29]	The mandatory, archival public databases for nucleotide sequence data. Submission with complete MIxS metadata is required by most journals.

Building the Framework: Methodologies, Tools, and Applications for Standardized Omics

What are the primary functions of the BioLLM and CZ CELLxGENE platforms?

BioLLM and CZ CELLxGENE serve as complementary computational ecosystems for managing and analyzing single-cell omics data. BioLLM functions as a standardized framework that provides a unified interface for integrating diverse single-cell foundation models (scFMs), enabling researchers to seamlessly switch between models like scGPT, Geneformer, and scFoundation for consistent benchmarking and analysis [30]. In contrast, CZ CELLxGENE is a comprehensive suite of tools that helps scientists find, download, explore, analyze, annotate, and publish single-cell datasets [31]. Its Discover portal provides access to a massive, standardized corpus of over 33 million unique cells from hundreds of datasets, while its Census component offers efficient low-latency API access to this data for computational research [32] [33].

How do these platforms support the standardization of plant omics data specifically?

While the platforms host and support data from multiple species, they provide critical infrastructure that can be leveraged for plant omics research. The CZ CELLxGENE Census includes data from multiple organisms and provides standardized cell metadata with harmonized labels, which is a fundamental requirement for cross-species comparative analyses [32]. For plant-specific research, scPlantFormer has been developed as a lightweight foundation model pretrained on 1 million Arabidopsis thaliana cells, demonstrating exceptional capabilities in cross-species data integration and cell-type annotation [34]. When using these platforms for plant research, ensure you select the appropriate organism-specific data, as some features like cross-species queries may be limited due to differing gene annotations [32].

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

Data Access and Query Performance

Why are my data queries in CZ CELLxGENE Census running slowly?

Query performance in the Census is primarily limited by internet bandwidth and client location. For optimal performance:

• Utilize a computer connected to high-speed internet, preferably with an ethernet connection rather than WiFi [32]
• Deploy computing resources located on the west coast of the US when possible [32]
• For the best performance, use EC2 AWS instances in the us-west-2 region where the data is hosted [32]

Can I query both human and mouse data in a single Census query?

No, the Census does not support querying both human and mouse data in a single query. This limitation exists because data from these organisms use different organism-specific gene annotations [32]. You must perform separate queries for each organism.

How can I access the original author-contributed normalized expression values or embeddings?

The Census does not contain normalized counts or embeddings because the original values are not harmonized across datasets and are therefore numerically incompatible [32]. If you need this data, access web downloads directly from the CZ CELLxGENE Discover Datasets feature instead of using the Census API [32].

Installation and Technical Issues

I encountered a weird error when trying to pip install cellxgene. What should I do?

This may occur due to bugs in the installation process. The developers recommend:

• Creating a new Github issue and explaining what you did [35]
• Including all error messages you saw [35]
• Running pip freeze and including the full output alongside your issue [35]

Why do I get an ArraySchema error when opening the Census?

This error typically occurs when using an old version of the Census API with a new Census data build. To resolve this:

• Update your Python or R Census package to the latest version [32]
• If the error persists, file a github issue for further support [32]

How do I resolve installation or import errors for cellxgene_census on Databricks?

When installing on Databricks, avoid using %sh pip install cellxgene_census as this doesn't restart the Python process after installation. Instead, use:

• %pip install -U cellxgene-census or
• pip install -U cellxgene-census [32]

These "magic" commands properly restart the Python process and ensure the package is installed on all nodes of a multi-node cluster [32].

How do I connect to the Census from behind a proxy?

TileDB doesn't use typical proxy environment variables. Configure your connection explicitly using:

Platform Integration Workflow for Plant Omics Analysis

Troubleshooting Decision Tree for Platform Issues

Foundation models are transforming single-cell omics analysis, offering powerful new paradigms for integrating complex biological data across species. In plant sciences, where data standardization is a significant challenge, models like scGPT and scPlantFormer provide frameworks for cross-study and cross-species analysis that can overcome batch effects and annotation inconsistencies. This technical support center addresses the specific implementation challenges researchers face when deploying these advanced AI tools, with a focus on standardizing plant omics data and metadata practices to ensure reproducible, FAIR-compliant research.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the fundamental differences between scGPT and scPlantFormer, and how do I choose between them for my plant single-cell project?

A1: scGPT is a comprehensive foundation model pretrained on over 33 million cells across multiple species, excelling in general single-cell multi-omics tasks including perturbation modeling and gene regulatory network inference [36]. In contrast, scPlantFormer is a specialized lightweight model specifically designed for plant single-cell omics, pretrained on one million Arabidopsis thaliana scRNA-seq data points [37]. Choose scGPT for multi-omics integration or cross-species analysis beyond plants, while scPlantFormer offers optimized performance for plant-specific applications with significantly lower computational requirements.

Table: Comparison of scGPT and scPlantFormer Foundation Models

Feature	scGPT	scPlantFormer
Training Data Scale	33+ million cells [36]	1 million Arabidopsis cells [37]
Primary Application Scope	General single-cell multi-omics	Plant-specific single-cell transcriptomics
Computational Requirements	High (requires GPU, flash-attention) [38]	Lightweight (laptop-compatible) [37]
Key Innovation	Generative AI for multi-omics integration [36]	CellMAE pretraining strategy for efficiency [37]
Cross-Species Accuracy	High for mammalian systems [36]	92% for plant species [37]

Q2: How do I properly prepare single-cell data from plant tissues to ensure compatibility with these foundation models?

A2: Plant single-cell analysis presents unique challenges, primarily the decision between single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq). scRNA-seq requires enzymatic digestion to create protoplasts, which can affect transcriptional states, while snRNA-seq can be performed on fresh, frozen, or fixed material but typically yields lower UMI counts and gene detection [39]. For foundation model compatibility, ensure your data includes:

• High-quality cell suspensions: Visual assessment of protoplast generation or nucleus release across all desired cell types
• Appropriate controls: Cell-type-specific markers for protocol validation
• Minimum quality thresholds: >90% viability, minimal debris and aggregation [40]
• Standardized metadata: Follow FAIR principles using tools like Swate with plant-specific templates (MIAPPE standards) [41]

Q3: What computational infrastructure is required to implement scGPT and scPlantFormer, and how can I optimize for limited resources?

A3: scGPT requires Python ≥3.7.13, PyTorch, and benefits significantly from GPU acceleration with specific CUDA compatibility (recommended CUDA 11.7 with flash-attention<1.0.5) [38]. For limited resources, scPlantFormer's patch-based architecture and CellMAE pretraining strategy dramatically reduce computational requirements, enabling operation on standard laptops [37]. Cloud-based solutions and the availability of pretrained model zoos for scGPT reduce local computational burdens.

Table: Computational Requirements and Optimization Strategies

Requirement	scGPT	scPlantFormer
Minimum Python Version	3.7.13 [38]	3.7+ [37]
GPU Acceleration	Required for optimal performance [38]	Optional (laptop-compatible) [37]
Memory Requirements	High (for large datasets) [36]	Optimized via patching strategy [37]
Pretrained Models	Available in model zoo [38]	Built-in for plant data [37]
Installation Command	pip install scgpt "flash-attn<1.0.5" [38]	Custom installation from source [37]

Q4: How do foundation models address the critical challenge of batch effects in cross-species integration of plant omics data?

A4: Both scGPT and scPlantFormer employ advanced strategies to mitigate batch effects. scGPT uses transfer learning frameworks that enhance robustness to technical variation across protocols and species [36]. scPlantFormer specifically addresses plant data challenges through its novel pretraining approach that captures biological signals while minimizing technical artifacts, achieving high cross-dataset annotation accuracy even with limited labeled data [37]. For optimal results, always:

• Process each sample individually before integration
• Perform quality control on each dataset separately
• Document filtering thresholds for reproducibility
• Use biological replicates (not technical replicates) for statistical validation [39]

Q5: What experimental validation is required to confirm cross-species cell type predictions generated by these foundation models?

A5: Foundation model predictions require rigorous experimental validation, particularly for novel cross-species cell type identifications. Recommended validation approaches include:

• Reporter lines for visual confirmation of predicted cell types
• Spatial transcriptomics to verify tissue localization patterns
• In situ hybridization for marker gene expression validation
• Differential expression analysis of pseudobulked samples to confirm cell-type-specific markers [39]

Always include proper biological replicates in your experimental design to avoid sacrificial pseudoreplication, which can dramatically increase false positive rates in differential expression analysis [40].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: Poor Cross-Species Annotation Accuracy

Symptoms: Low confidence scores for cell type predictions, inconsistent annotation across similar cell types, failure to identify conserved cell types.

Solution:

• Data Quality Assessment: Verify that your query dataset meets quality thresholds (median genes per cell, mitochondrial read percentage, UMI counts) [42]
• Reference Dataset Compatibility: Ensure reference and query datasets share biologically relevant cell types
• Batch Effect Correction: Apply appropriate batch correction methods before foundation model application
• scPlantFormer Workflow Implementation: Utilize the specialized workflows in scPlantFormer designed specifically for cross-dataset cell-type annotation [37]

Issue 2: Computational Resource Limitations

Symptoms: Memory errors during training, extremely slow inference times, inability to load pretrained models.

Solution:

• scGPT Optimization:
  • Utilize flash-attention optional dependency [38]
  • Employ the provided model zoo with pretrained weights
  • Use reference mapping for large datasets (FAISS integration)

• scPlantFormer Advantages:

  • Leverage the lightweight architecture designed for efficiency
  • Implement the CellMAE pretraining strategy
  • Utilize patch-based processing for reduced memory footprint [37]

• General Optimization:

  • Start with subset of data for protocol development
  • Use cloud resources for large-scale analysis
  • Implement data chunking for memory-intensive operations

Issue 3: Inconsistent Results Across Biological Replicates

Symptoms: Different cell type proportions across replicates, variable gene expression patterns, statistical significance issues.

Solution:

• Proper Replicate Design:
  • Ensure true biological replicates (independent growth, harvesting, processing)
  • Avoid treating technical replicates as biological replicates [39]

• Statistical Validation:

  • Implement pseudobulking approaches to account for between-sample variation
  • Use appropriate statistical tests that consider biological replicate structure
  • Calculate correlation coefficients between replicate expression profiles

• Foundation Model Tuning:

  • Utilize scPlantFormer's few-shot learning capabilities for limited data
  • Apply transfer learning with scGPT to adapt to specific experimental conditions
  • Validate with cluster-specific differentially expressed genes

Issue 4: Integration with Existing Single-Cell Analysis Pipelines

Symptoms: Format incompatibility, inability to export results to standard tools, workflow disruption.

Solution:

• Data Format Compatibility:
  • Ensure data in standard formats (H5AD, CSV, Seurat objects)
  • Preprocess with tools like Cell Ranger for 10x Genomics data [42]
  • Use quality control metrics compatible with foundation model requirements

• Workflow Integration:

  • Utilize scGPT's compatibility with Scanpy/Seurat ecosystems [38]
  • Implement scPlantFormer within established plant single-cell workflows
  • Export results for visualization in standard tools (Loupe Browser, UCSC Cell Browser)

• Metadata Management:

  • Annotate with FAIR-compliant metadata using Swate templates [41]
  • Document all preprocessing and analysis steps for reproducibility
  • Use standardized ontologies for cell type annotations

Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Materials for Foundation Model Implementation in Plant Single-Cell Omics

Reagent/Resource	Function	Implementation Notes
Single-cell RNA-seq kits (10x Genomics 3' Gene Expression)	Transcriptome profiling	Choose between scRNA-seq (protoplasts) and snRNA-seq (nuclei) based on biological question [39]
Enzyme solutions for protoplasting	Cell wall digestion for scRNA-seq	Optimize with L-cysteine, sorbitol, or L-arginine for specific species [39]
Nuclei isolation buffers	Nuclear extraction for snRNA-seq	Compatible with fresh, frozen, or fixed material [39]
Cell viability stains	Quality assessment	Critical for evaluating protoplast/nuclei preparations [40]
FAIRdom SEEK/pISA-tree	Metadata management	Plant-specific FAIR data capture systems [43]
Swate annotation templates	Standardized metadata	ISA-based templates with plant ontology terms [41]
Pretrained model weights	Foundation model initialization	Available for both scGPT and scPlantFormer [38] [37]

Advanced Workflow: Cross-Species Integration Protocol

Objective: Identify conserved cell types across plant species using scPlantFormer foundation model.

Step-by-Step Methodology:

• Data Collection and Curation

  • Gather scRNA-seq datasets from multiple plant species
  • Apply stringent quality control: UMI counts, gene detection, mitochondrial percentage
  • Annotate with standardized metadata using Swate with MIAPPE templates [41]

• Preprocessing for Foundation Model Compatibility

  • Identify 8,000 highly variable genes (HVGs) following scPlantFormer protocol [37]
  • Partition gene expression vectors into equally sized sub-vectors
  • Apply 75% random masking using CellMAE strategy

• Model Application and Cross-Species Mapping

  • Generate cell embeddings using scPlantFormer encoder
  • Perform reference-based annotation with limited labeled data (1% labels)
  • Identify conserved cell types through shared embedding spaces

• Validation and Biological Interpretation

  • Validate predictions with marker gene expression
  • Perform differential expression analysis on pseudobulked samples
  • Confirm findings with spatial transcriptomics or in situ hybridization [39]

This technical support framework provides plant researchers with practical solutions for implementing cutting-edge foundation models while maintaining rigorous standards for data quality, metadata annotation, and experimental validation—essential components for advancing cross-species integration in plant omics research.

Modern biology has moved beyond single-data-type analyses. Multi-omics integration combines data from various molecular levels—such as the genome, transcriptome, epigenome, and proteome—to create a comprehensive understanding of biological systems [44]. In plant research, this approach is particularly powerful for connecting genotypic information to complex phenotypic traits like flowering time and stress resilience [45] [46].

The core challenge lies in the sheer complexity and heterogeneity of the data. Each omics layer has unique data scales, noise profiles, and measurement sensitivities, making integration non-trivial [47]. For instance, actively transcribed genes should theoretically have greater chromatin accessibility, but this correlation does not always hold true in practice. Similarly, abundant proteins may not always correlate with high gene expression levels due to post-transcriptional regulation [47]. Overcoming these hurdles requires sophisticated computational tools and standardized experimental protocols, especially in the context of plant systems with their diverse metabolites and poorly annotated genomes [44].

Key FAQs on Multi-Omics Data Generation

Q1: What are the primary types of multi-omics integration strategies?

Integration strategies are broadly classified based on how the data is sourced and combined. The table below outlines the main computational approaches.

Table: Multi-Omics Integration Strategies and Tools

Integration Type	Data Source	Description	Example Tools
Matched (Vertical) [47]	Different omics from the same cell	Uses the cell itself as an anchor to integrate modalities. Ideal for concurrent RNA & protein or RNA & ATAC-seq data.	Seurat v4, MOFA+, totalVI, scMVAE
Unmatched (Diagonal) [47]	Different omics from different cells	Projects cells into a co-embedded space to find commonality, as there is no direct cellular anchor.	GLUE, Pamona, UnionCom, Seurat v3
Mosaic Integration [47]	Various omic combinations across samples	Integrates datasets where each sample has measured different, but overlapping, combinations of omics.	Cobolt, MultiVI, StabMap
Spatial Integration [48] [47]	Omics data with spatial coordinates	Leverages spatial location as an anchor to co-profile or integrate multiple omics layers within a tissue context.	Spatial ATAC-RNA-seq, Spatial CUT&Tag-RNA-seq, ArchR

Q2: How is spatial multi-omics data generated, and what are its advantages?

Spatial multi-omics technologies allow for the genome-wide, joint profiling of multiple molecular layers, such as the epigenome and transcriptome, on the same tissue section at near-single-cell resolution [48].

The workflow involves fixing a tissue section and simultaneously processing it for two different omics reads. For example, in Spatial ATAC–RNA-seq, the tissue is treated with a Tn5 transposition complex to tag accessible genomic DNA, while a biotinylated adaptor binds mRNA to initiate reverse transcription [48]. A microfluidic chip with a grid of channels is then used to introduce spatial barcodes onto the tissue, tagging each "pixel" with a unique molecular identifier. After processing, the libraries for gDNA and cDNA are constructed and sequenced separately [48].

This co-profiling preserves the tissue architecture, enabling researchers to directly link epigenetic mechanisms to transcriptional phenotypes within the native tissue context and uncover spatial epigenetic priming and gene regulation [48].

Troubleshooting Common Experimental Challenges

Q3: Our NGS library yields are consistently low. What are the main causes and solutions?

Low library yield is a common bottleneck in preparing omics data. The following table outlines frequent issues and their corrective actions.

Table: Troubleshooting Low NGS Library Yield

Root Cause	Mechanism of Failure	Corrective Action
Poor Input Quality / Contaminants [49]	Residual salts, phenol, or polysaccharides inhibit enzymatic reactions (ligation, polymerase).	Re-purify input sample; use fluorometric quantification (Qubit); ensure high purity ratios (260/230 > 1.8).
Fragmentation & Ligation Failures [49]	Over- or under-shearing creates suboptimal fragment sizes; poor ligase performance or incorrect adapter ratios.	Optimize fragmentation parameters; titrate adapter-to-insert molar ratio; ensure fresh ligase and buffer.
Amplification Problems [49]	Too many PCR cycles introduces bias and duplicates; enzyme inhibitors remain from prior steps.	Reduce the number of PCR cycles; use master mixes to reduce pipetting errors and improve consistency.
Purification & Size Selection Loss [49]	Incorrect bead-to-sample ratio or over-drying of beads leads to inefficient recovery of target fragments.	Precisely follow cleanup protocols; avoid over-drying magnetic beads.

Q4: When integrating transcriptomic and epigenomic data, the correlations are weak. Is this normal, and how can it be resolved?

Yes, this is a common and expected challenge. Machine learning models built for traits like flowering time in Arabidopsis using genomic (G), transcriptomic (T), and methylomic (M) data have shown that models from different omics layers identify distinct sets of important genes [45]. The feature importance scores between different omics types show weak or no correlation, indicating they capture complementary biological signals [45].

To address this:

• Do not expect perfect linear correlations. The relationship between epigenomic state and transcript abundance is complex and non-linear.
• Use integrated machine learning models. Models that combine G, T, and M data simultaneously have been shown to perform best and can reveal known and novel gene interactions [45].
• Leverage specialized computational tools designed for unmatched data integration, such as manifold alignment or variational autoencoders, which can find commonality between datasets without relying on simple correlation [47].

Q5: What specific challenges exist for multi-omics integration in plant systems?

Plants present unique obstacles that require special consideration [44]:

• Poorly annotated genomes, especially for non-model species.
• Metabolic diversity and the presence of diverse secondary metabolites.
• Complex interaction networks with symbionts in the rhizosphere.
• Plasticity and environmental responsiveness, meaning the same genotype can exhibit different molecular profiles under different conditions [46].

A systematic Multi-Omics Integration (MOI) workflow is recommended to ensure accurate data representation. This can be broken down into three levels [44]:

• Level 1 (Element-based): Unbiased integration using correlation, clustering, or multivariate analysis.
• Level 2 (Pathway-based): Knowledge-driven integration using pathway mapping (e.g., KEGG, MapMan) or co-expression networks.
• Level 3 (Mathematical): Quantitative integration using differential and genome-scale analysis to build predictive models.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table: Key Reagents and Technologies for Multi-Omics Research

Item / Technology	Function in Multi-Omics Workflow
Spatial ATAC–RNA-seq [48]	Enables genome-wide, simultaneous co-profiling of chromatin accessibility and gene expression on the same tissue section.
Spatial CUT&Tag–RNA-seq [48]	Allows for the joint profiling of histone modifications (e.g., H3K27me3, H3K27ac) and the transcriptome from the same tissue section.
Tn5 Transposase [48]	An enzyme used in epigenomic methods (e.g., ATAC-seq) to simultaneously fragment and tag accessible genomic DNA with adapters.
Deterministic Barcoding [48]	A method using microfluidic chips to introduce spatial barcodes onto tissue, assigning spatial coordinates to molecular data.
MOFA+ (Multi-Omics Factor Analysis) [47]	A statistical tool for the vertical integration of multiple omics modalities (e.g., mRNA, DNA methylation, chromatin accessibility) from the same samples.
GLUE (Graph-Linked Unified Embedding) [47]	A tool based on graph variational autoencoders designed for unmatched integration, using prior biological knowledge to anchor features across omics layers.
ZXH-3-26	ZXH-3-26, MF:C38H37ClN8O7S, MW:785.3 g/mol
TD-165	TD-165, MF:C46H59N7O8S, MW:870.1 g/mol

Standardized Workflow for Data Generation and Integration

The following diagram illustrates a generalized, high-level workflow for generating and integrating multi-omics data, from sample preparation to biological insight.

The integration of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and spatial transcriptomics (ST) is revolutionizing plant omics research, enabling unprecedented resolution in studying cellular heterogeneity and spatial organization of gene expression. However, significant variability in quality control procedures, analysis parameters, and metadata reporting often compromises the reliability and reproducibility of findings [50]. This technical support center provides standardized troubleshooting guides and protocols specifically framed within plant natural products research, where understanding the biosynthetic pathways of valuable specialized metabolites is a primary goal [51]. By implementing these standardized workflows, researchers can ensure their data meets FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable), facilitating more robust discovery and validation in plant metabolic pathway elucidation [52] [51].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What are the most critical quality control checkpoints in scRNA-seq analysis? The most critical QC checkpoints involve filtering based on three key metrics: the number of counts per barcode (count depth), the number of genes per barcode, and the fraction of counts from mitochondrial genes per barcode [53]. Barcodes with low counts/genes and high mitochondrial fractions often represent dying cells or broken membranes, while those with unexpectedly high counts may indicate doublets [53] [54].

2. How can I distinguish true biological signals from technical artifacts in my scRNA-seq data? Technical artifacts including batch effects, ambient RNA, and cell doublets can obscure biological signals. Batch effects arising from different processing conditions should be addressed using integration tools like Seurat, SCTransform, FastMNN, or scVI [54]. Ambient RNA can be mitigated computationally with tools like SoupX, CellBender, and DecontX [54], while doublets can be identified and removed using Scrublet or DoubletFinder [53] [54].

3. My spatial transcriptomics data shows misaligned tissue slices. What solutions are available? Multiple computational tools exist for aligning and integrating multiple ST tissue slices. For homogeneous tissues, statistical mapping tools like PASTE are effective. For more heterogeneous tissues (common in plant samples), graph-based approaches such as SpatiAlign or STAligner often provide more robust alignment [55]. The choice depends on your tissue complexity and experimental design.

4. What metadata is essential for reproducible plant omics studies? Essential metadata includes detailed sample information (collection date, location, tissue type), experimental conditions, processing methodologies (extraction protocols, sequencing platform), and data processing parameters [10] [52]. For plant natural product research, specifically document developmental stage, organ type, and environmental conditions, as these strongly influence specialized metabolism [51]. Standardized templates following MIxS (Minimum Information about any (x) Sequence) checklists are recommended [10] [52].

5. How should I handle differential expression analysis across multiple samples in scRNA-seq? A common mistake is grouping all cells from each condition together and performing differential expression at the single-cell level, which can yield artificially small p-values due to non-independence. Instead, use pseudo-bulk approaches that aggregate counts per sample before testing, thus properly accounting for biological replicates [56].

Troubleshooting Guides

Common scRNA-seq Data Quality Issues and Solutions

Table 1: Troubleshooting scRNA-seq Data Quality

Problem	Cause	Solution	Validation
High mitochondrial read fraction	Dead/dying cells with ruptured cytoplasmic membranes [53]	Filter cells exceeding a threshold (often 10-20%); adjust based on cell type and biological context [54]	Check if removed cells form a distinct cluster in dimensionality reduction plots
Cell doublets	Multiple cells sharing the same barcode [57]	Use Scrublet (Python) or DoubletFinder (R) to identify and remove doublets bioinformatically [53] [54]	Confirm the removal of intermediate cell phenotypes that don't align with established lineages
Ambient RNA contamination	Free-floating transcripts barcoded alongside intact cells, prevalent in droplet-based methods [50] [54]	Apply computational removal tools such as SoupX, CellBender, or DecontX during preprocessing [54]	Reduction in background gene expression levels and cross-cell-type contamination
Batch effects	Technical variations between sequencing runs or experimental batches [57]	Apply batch correction algorithms (e.g., Harmony, Combat, Scanorama) during data integration [57] [54]	Cells of the same type from different batches should co-cluster in UMAP/t-SNE plots
Low number of detected genes	Poor cell viability, low sequencing depth, or inadequate cDNA amplification [57]	Optimize cell dissociation protocols; ensure sufficient sequencing depth; use UMIs to correct for amplification bias [57]	Check knee plots to set appropriate thresholds for filtering empty droplets vs. true cells [54]

Spatial Transcriptomics Alignment Challenges

Table 2: Troubleshooting Spatial Transcriptomics Data Integration

Challenge	Impact on Analysis	Recommended Tools	Considerations for Plant Research
Multiple slice alignment	Enables 3D tissue reconstruction and comprehensive analysis [55]	PASTE (homogeneous slices), STAligner (heterogeneous tissues) [55]	Plant tissues often exhibit greater structural heterogeneity; choose graph-based methods accordingly [55] [51]
Integration with scRNA-seq	Provides higher resolution for cell type identification and mapping [58]	Seurat, Scanpy integration workflows	Ensure scRNA-seq reference captures relevant cell states present in the spatial data context [58]
Spatial domain identification	Reveals tissue organization and functional niches [55]	PRECAST, GraphST for clustering with spatial constraints	Plant metabolic specializations often follow spatial patterns; validate domains with known marker genes [51]
Handling low resolution	Limits precise cellular localization, especially in dense plant tissues	Cell2location, RCTD for deconvoluting spot-level data	Leverage single-cell plant transcriptomes to infer cell type proportions within each spatial spot [58]

Standardized Experimental Protocols

scRNA-seq Quality Control and Pre-processing Workflow

The following diagram outlines the critical steps for standardizing scRNA-seq quality control and pre-processing:

Standardized scRNA-seq QC and Pre-processing Workflow

Step-by-Step Protocol:

• From FASTQ to Count Matrices: Process raw FASTQ files using pipelines like Cell Ranger, STAR, or kallisto/bustools to generate gene count matrices. This includes read QC, barcode assignment, genome alignment, and quantification [53] [54].

• Quality Control Metrics Calculation: For each cellular barcode, calculate three essential QC covariates [53]:

  • Count depth: Total number of counts per barcode
  • Genes per barcode: Number of detected genes
  • Mitochondrial fraction: Percentage of counts mapping to mitochondrial genes

• Multivariate Thresholding: Jointly examine distributions of QC metrics to set filtering thresholds [53]:

  • Low-quality cells: Set lower thresholds for counts/genes and upper threshold for mitochondrial percentage based on distribution inflection points [54].
  • Doublets: Use expected doublet rates for your technology and apply tools like Scrublet or DoubletFinder [53] [54].
  • Ambient RNA: Apply SoupX, CellBender, or DecontX to remove background RNA contamination [54].

• Data Normalization: Normalize counts to account for differences in sequencing depth using methods like library size normalization followed by log transformation [54].

Spatial Transcriptomics Data Integration Framework

The following diagram illustrates the computational framework for standardizing spatial transcriptomics data alignment and integration:

Spatial Transcriptomics Data Integration Framework

Integration Protocol:

• Data Preparation: Collect multiple consecutive tissue slices from the same experiment or across different datasets. Ensure consistent coordinate systems and formatting [55].

• Method Selection: Choose integration approach based on tissue characteristics [55]:

  • Statistical mapping methods (PASTE, GPSA): Optimal for homogeneous tissues with consistent cell type distributions
  • Image processing/registration (STalign, STUtility): Effective when tissue landmarks are clearly identifiable
  • Graph-based methods (SpatiAlign, STAligner): Most suitable for heterogeneous tissues (common in plant samples) with diverse cell populations

• Alignment Execution: Apply selected method to align slices within a common coordinate framework. For 3D reconstruction, ensure proper stacking of consecutive sections [55].

• Validation: Assess alignment quality using:

  • Alignment accuracy metrics provided by the tools
  • Spatial coherence of known marker genes across aligned slices
  • Cluster consistency across integrated datasets

• Integrated Analysis: Perform downstream analyses (spatial clustering, differential expression, cell-cell interaction inference) on the aligned dataset to maximize biological insights [55] [58].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Plant scRNA-seq and ST

Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Function in Experimental Workflow
Single-Cell Isolation	Droplet-based systems (10x Genomics) [58]	Partitions individual cells into oil droplets for barcoding and reverse transcription
	Combinatorial barcoding (Parse Biosciences) [54]	Uses fixed, permeabilized cells in multi-well plates for in-situ barcoding with reduced background RNA
Spatial Transcriptomics	Visium (10x Genomics) [58]	Captures RNA from tissue sections on spatially barcoded array spots for genome-wide expression profiling
	CosMx (NanoString) [58]	Enables highly multiplexed in-situ analysis of RNA and protein targets at subcellular resolution
Library Preparation	Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs) [57] [53]	Labels individual mRNA molecules to correct for amplification bias and enable accurate transcript counting
	Smart-seq2 [57]	Provides full-length transcript coverage with higher sensitivity for detecting low-abundance transcripts
Functional Validation	Nicotiana benthamiana transient expression [51]	Rapid heterologous expression system for functional characterization of plant biosynthetic enzymes
	Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS) [51]	Tool for rapid, transient loss-of-function studies to confirm gene function in planta
ETP-45658	ETP-45658, MF:C16H17N5O2, MW:311.34 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
BSJ-04-132	BSJ-04-132, MF:C42H49N11O7, MW:819.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Metadata Standards for Plant Omics Research

Proper metadata management is crucial for reproducible plant omics research, especially when studying natural product biosynthesis where environmental conditions strongly influence metabolic outcomes [51].

Table 4: Essential Metadata Requirements for Plant Omics Studies

Metadata Category	Minimum Required Fields	Plant-Specific Considerations	Standards Compliance
Sample Metadata	Collection date/time, geospatial coordinates, tissue type, developmental stage [10]	Document soil type, climate conditions, harvesting time; critical for specialized metabolite studies [51]	MIxS checklist, Darwin Core [10] [52]
Experimental Metadata	DNA/RNA extraction protocol, library preparation method, sequencing platform [10]	Specify cell dissociation methods for scRNA-seq; fixation protocols for spatial transcriptomics	MIxS, ENA metadata model [10] [52]
Data Processing	Software versions, parameters, reference genome used, quality thresholds [10]	Include genome assembly version and annotation source for non-model plant species	FAIR principles, version-controlled code [52]
Project Context	Project title, principal investigator, funding source, data repository links [10]	Link to relevant plant-specific databases (e.g., Phytozome, PlantCyc) for cross-referencing	GCMD keywords, domain-specific standards [10]

Implementation Guidelines:

• Use Standardized Templates: Create project-specific templates based on MIxS standards early in experimental planning [10] [52].
• Incorporate Plant-Specific Ontologies: Use controlled vocabularies for plant anatomy, development stages, and environmental conditions [52].
• Ensure FAIR Compliance: Make data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable by depositing in appropriate repositories with rich metadata [52] [51].
• Document Computational Environment: Record software versions, parameters, and computational methods to enable exact reproduction of analyses [10].

Navigating Challenges: Solutions for Experimental Design, Data Heterogeneity, and Batch Effects

FAQs on Replication and Pseudoreplication

What is the fundamental difference between a biological replicate and a pseudoreplicate?

A biological replicate is an independent, randomly assigned experimental unit to which a treatment is applied. The experimental unit is the smallest entity that can independently receive the treatment. In contrast, a pseudoreplicate is a measurement that is not statistically independent because the treatment was applied to a larger unit that contains it. Using pseudoreplicates in statistical tests as if they were true replicates inflates the apparent sample size and increases the risk of false-positive conclusions [59].

For example, if you apply a temperature treatment to a single incubator containing 20 Petri dishes, your true replication is one (the incubator), not 20. The 20 dishes are subsamples or pseudoreplicates because they all share the same non-independent conditions of that single incubator. Any issue with that incubator (e.g., temperature fluctuation, humidity change) affects all dishes within it, confounding the treatment effect with the "incubator effect" [59].

Why is pseudoreplication particularly problematic in plant omics research?

Plant omics research often involves complex, costly treatments and multi-level biological organization, making it highly susceptible to pseudoreplication. The problem is severe for several reasons:

• Confounded Effects: It confounds the treatment effect with the effect of the larger experimental unit (e.g., a growth chamber, a specific field plot). This makes it impossible to know if observed molecular changes (e.g., in gene expression or metabolite levels) are due to the treatment or some unknown quirk of the shared environment [59].
• Data Integrity: Omics data are complex and high-dimensional. Building statistical models on a flawed replication structure compromises the entire data analysis, leading to unreliable inferences about genes, proteins, and metabolites [60].
• Reproducibility Crisis: Pseudoreplication undermines the reproducibility of research, a significant challenge in modern science. Findings from a pseudoreplicated study are unlikely to be replicated in different labs or conditions [61].

How can I avoid pseudoreplication with environmental or atmospheric treatments?

Atmospheric treatments (e.g., elevated COâ‚‚, warming, drought) are classic scenarios for pseudoreplication. The key is to ensure the treatment is applied independently to multiple experimental units.

• Incorrect Approach: Using one growth chamber for elevated COâ‚‚ and another for ambient COâ‚‚, with multiple plants in each chamber. Here, the chamber is the experimental unit (n=1 per treatment), not the plants [59].
• Correct Approach: Applying the treatment individually to each experimental unit. For a warming experiment, this could mean using multiple independent incubators (e.g., 20 incubators per treatment) or, more practically, using individual temperature controllers for each pot or growth unit within a shared chamber. This ensures the treatment is replicated and the samples are statistically independent [59].

Are there acceptable statistical solutions if I cannot avoid a pseudoreplicated design?

In some research, such as landscape-scale manipulations or studies of natural events, true replication may be logistically or financially impossible. While proper design is always preferred, statistical methods can account for the lack of independence in these cases.

• Nested and Mixed Models: These models can explicitly account for the hierarchical structure of the data. For example, you can model "plants" as nested within "chambers," treating "chambers" as a random effect. This provides a more appropriate estimate of variance and error [62].
• Clear Reporting: It is crucial to be transparent about the design limitations. Clearly state the potential for confounded effects and precisely define the population to which your statistical inferences apply—for instance, acknowledging that your results are specific to the single site or chamber used [62].

Troubleshooting Common Experimental Scenarios

Problem: My growth chamber failed, and I lost one treatment group.

Solution:

• Do not simply replace the chamber and continue. This introduces a temporal confound (time and treatment are mixed).
• Restart the entire experiment. While costly, this is the only way to maintain the integrity of the experimental design and ensure that all treatment groups are subjected to the same environmental variations over time.
• Implement a monitoring system. Use data loggers in all growth chambers to track temperature, humidity, and light intensity throughout the experiment. This data is essential for diagnosing problems and can be used as a covariate in statistical analyses if minor variations occur [61].

Problem: I need to pool tissue from multiple plants for a single omics measurement.

Solution: This is a common and acceptable practice, but the replication unit must be correctly defined.

• If the treatment is applied to individual plants: Pooling tissue from several plants within the same treatment group to create one sample for RNA or metabolite extraction creates a single biological replicate. You must perform this pooling process independently for multiple, separate sets of plants to generate true biological replicates (n) for statistical analysis.
• If the treatment is applied to a larger unit (e.g., a pot with multiple plants): The entire pot is the experimental unit. Pooling plants from the same pot creates a single sample for that pot. You would need multiple, independent pots (treatment units) to have replication.

The table below summarizes how to define replicates in this context.

Experimental Setup	True Biological Replicate	Common Mistake (Pseudoreplication)
Treatment applied to individual plants; tissue from 5 plants is pooled for one omics sample.	The single pooled sample. Multiple independent pools are needed for replication.	Treating each of the 5 individual plants within the pool as a replicate.
One pot containing 5 plants receives a treatment.	The entire pot. Multiple independent pots are needed for replication.	Treating each of the 5 plants within the pot as a replicate.

Problem: I suspect a published study or a reviewer has misidentified pseudoreplication in my work.

Solution: Engage in a constructive dialogue focused on experimental units and statistics.

• Clearly re-state your hypothesis and the population of interest. This clarifies what your experiment was designed to test.
• Explicitly identify your experimental unit. Define the entity to which the treatment was independently applied.
• Explain your statistical model. If you used a nested or mixed model, show how you accounted for hierarchical data structure. Avoid using the term "pseudoreplication" in rebuttals, as it can be inflammatory. Instead, discuss the specific concerns about "statistical independence of samples" or "potential confounds" and demonstrate how your design or analysis addresses them [62].

Standardized Protocols for Reproducible Plant-Microbiome Research

Achieving reproducibility, especially in complex fields like plant-microbiome research, requires rigorous standardization. The following protocol, adapted from a successful multi-laboratory ring trial, provides a framework for highly replicable experiments [61] [63].

Objective: To ensure consistent and reproducible assembly of synthetic microbial communities (SynComs) on plant roots and the analysis of resulting phenotypes and molecular profiles.

Key Reagent Solutions:

Research Reagent	Function in the Protocol
EcoFAB 2.0 Device	A sterile, fabricated ecosystem (habitat) that provides a controlled and standardized environment for plant growth and microbiome studies [63].
Synthetic Microbial Communities (SynComs)	Defined mixtures of bacterial isolates, available from public biobanks (e.g., DSMZ), which limit complexity while retaining functional diversity [63].
Brachypodium distachyon Seeds	A model grass species with standardized genotypes for consistent plant host responses [63].
Standardized Growth Medium	A defined liquid or gel-based medium (e.g., Murashige and Skoog-based) to ensure consistent nutrient availability [63].

Methodology:

• Device Assembly and Sterilization: Assemble the EcoFAB 2.0 device according to the provided specifications. Sterilize the device and all components before use. Verify sterility by incubating spent medium on LB agar plates at multiple time points [63].
• Plant Material Preparation:
  • Dehusk and surface-sterilize Brachypodium distachyon seeds.
  • Stratify seeds at 4°C for 3 days.
  • Germinate seeds on agar plates for 3 days under sterile conditions [63].
• Seedling Transfer:
  • Transfer sterile seedlings to the EcoFAB 2.0 device containing the standardized growth medium.
  • Allow plants to grow for an additional 4 days before inoculation [63].
• SynCom Inoculation:
  • Prepare SynCom inoculum using optical density (OD600) conversions to colony-forming units (CFU) to ensure equal cell numbers across all replicates.
  • Inoculate 10-day-old seedlings in the EcoFAB with the SynCom (e.g., a final density of 1×10^5 bacterial cells per plant) [63].
• Plant Growth and Maintenance:
  • Grow plants under controlled conditions, refilling water as needed to maintain humidity.
  • Perform non-destructive root imaging at predefined timepoints [63].
• Sampling and Data Collection:
  • At harvest (e.g., 22 days after inoculation), collect the following from multiple independent biological replicates (recommended n=7 per treatment):
    • Plant Phenotype: Measure shoot fresh and dry weight, and perform root image analysis.
    • Microbiome Samples: Collect root and media samples for 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing.
    • Metabolite Samples: Collect filtered media for untargeted metabolomics via LC-MS/MS [63].
• Data Analysis:
  • To minimize analytical variation, process all omics samples (sequencing, metabolomics) in a single centralized laboratory [63].
  • Use standardized bioinformatic pipelines for data analysis.

This protocol, with its emphasis on standardized reagents, detailed steps, and centralized analysis, has been proven to yield consistent plant phenotypes, exometabolite profiles, and microbiome assembly across five independent laboratories [63].

Visual Guide to Experimental Design

The following diagram illustrates the critical logical relationship between experimental design choices and the validity of research outcomes, highlighting the pitfall of pseudoreplication.

Troubleshooting Guide: Identifying and Resolving Batch Effects

How do I know if my dataset has batch effects?

Batch effects introduce systematic, non-biological variation into your data due to technical differences in sample processing, sequencing runs, or reagent lots [64] [65]. To diagnose them, use a combination of visualization and quantitative metrics.

Visual Detection Methods:

• Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Perform PCA on your raw data and color the data points by batch. If the samples cluster strongly by their batch rather than by biological condition in the top principal components, this signals a batch effect [66] [65].
• t-SNE or UMAP Plots: Visualize your data using t-SNE or UMAP. Before correction, cells or samples from different batches often form separate clusters. After successful correction, they should mix based on biological similarity, such as cell type or treatment group [66] [65].

Quantitative Metrics for Detection: The table below summarizes key metrics to objectively assess the presence and severity of batch effects.

Metric	Description	Interpretation
k-nearest neighbor Batch Effect Test (kBET) [64]	Measures if local neighborhoods of cells are representative of the overall batch distribution.	A higher acceptance rate indicates better batch mixing.
Average Silhouette Width (ASW) [64]	Quantifies how well samples cluster by cell type (biology) versus by batch (noise).	Values closer to 1 indicate tight clustering by cell type.
Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) [64]	Measures the similarity between two clusterings (e.g., before and after correction).	Higher values indicate better preservation of biological clustering.
Local Inverse Simpson's Index (LISI) [64]	Assesses the diversity of batches in a local neighborhood.	Higher LISI scores indicate better mixing of batches.

What are the signs that my batch effect correction has failed or over-corrected?

Batch effect correction can fail in two ways: by under-correcting (leaving too much technical noise) or by over-correcting (removing genuine biological signal) [66] [67].

Signs of Over-Correction:

• Loss of Biological Distinction: Distinct cell types or treatment groups are incorrectly clustered together on your UMAP or t-SNE plot [66].
• Complete Overlap of Samples: Samples from vastly different biological conditions show a complete overlap, which is biologically implausible [66].
• Loss of Canonical Markers: A significant absence of expected cluster-specific markers (e.g., a known T-cell marker is missing from a T-cell cluster) [65].
• Poor Marker Genes: Cluster-specific markers are dominated by genes with widespread high expression (e.g., ribosomal genes) instead of informative, specific markers [66] [65].

Signs of Under-Correction:

• Samples still cluster strongly by batch in visualizations after correction.
• Differential expression analysis identifies genes that are confounded by batch.

How can I design my plant omics experiment to minimize batch effects?

Proactive experimental design is the most effective strategy against batch effects [64].

• Randomization and Balancing: Do not process all samples from one biological group (e.g., a specific mutant line) in a single batch. Randomize and balance your samples across all processing batches (e.g., different days, library prep kits) so that each batch contains a representative mix of all biological conditions [64].
• Use of Controls: Include pooled control samples or technical replicates in every batch. These provide a consistent reference to model and correct for technical variation [64].
• Standardized Protocols: Use consistent reagents, protocols, and personnel throughout the study whenever possible [64].
• Comprehensive Metadata Collection: Meticulously record all technical and experimental metadata. This is non-negotiable for effective correction and is a core principle of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data [52]. For plant omics, this includes details like growth chamber conditions, time of day of harvest, and sample preparation protocols.

FAQs on Batch Effect Correction and Data Harmonization

What is the difference between data harmonization and batch effect correction?

While related, these terms describe different scopes of data processing.

• Batch Effect Correction is a specific technical step aimed at removing unwanted technical variation from a dataset. It focuses on ensuring that samples group by biology, not by technical artifacts like sequencing run date [67] [64].
• Data Harmonization is a broader, more comprehensive process. It involves unifying disparate data from multiple sources or formats into a cohesive, comparable dataset [68]. This process addresses three layers:
  • Syntax: Standardizing data formats (e.g., ensuring all dates follow YYYY-MM-DD) [68].
  • Structure: Mapping different data schemas to a unified model [68].
  • Semantics: Aligning the meaning of data using controlled vocabularies and ontologies (e.g., mapping all terms for "leaf" to a single ontology ID like PO:0025034) [68] [69].

In short, batch effect correction is a subset of the broader goal of data harmonization, which is essential for integrating data from different studies or databases, a common challenge in plant omics research [70].

What is the difference between normalization and batch effect correction?

These are two distinct steps in a data preprocessing workflow.

• Normalization operates directly on the raw count matrix. Its primary goal is to adjust for technical variations like sequencing depth (library size) and gene length, making counts comparable across different cells or samples [65]. It does not address systematic differences between batches.
• Batch Effect Correction is typically applied after normalization. It uses the normalized data to specifically identify and remove variation associated with known or hidden batch factors, aligning datasets that were processed in different batches [65].

Which batch effect correction method should I use for my single-cell plant transcriptomics data?

There is no single "best" method; the choice depends on your data's nature and size. The following table compares popular methods. It is recommended to test multiple methods on your data and validate the results carefully [66] [71].

Method	Best For	Key Principle	Considerations
Harmony [66] [64]	Large-scale single-cell data integration.	Iterative clustering in PCA space to remove batch effects.	Fast runtime, good performance, but may be less scalable for extremely large datasets [66].
Seurat (CCA) [66] [65]	Integrating datasets with shared cell types.	Uses Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) and Mutual Nearest Neighbors (MNNs) as "anchors."	Well-integrated into a popular scRNA-seq analysis suite; has lower scalability [66].
scANVI [66]	Complex integration tasks where labels are available.	Uses a generative model and deep learning.	Considered high-performing in benchmarks but can be complex to implement [66].
ComBat [71] [64]	Bulk RNA-seq or single-cell data with known batch variables.	Uses an empirical Bayes framework to adjust for known batches.	Requires known batch info; may not handle non-linear effects well [64].
Mutual Nearest Neighbors (MNN) [66] [65]	Integrating pairs of datasets.	Finds mutual nearest neighbors between batches to infer a correction.	Can be computationally intensive for high-dimensional data [65].

How can I ensure my plant omics metadata is FAIR and ready for harmonization?

Adherence to community standards is key for metadata in plant omics research [52] [72].

• Use Minimum Information Standards: Follow checklists like MIAPPE (Minimum Information About a Plant Phenotyping Experiment) to ensure all necessary metadata is captured [72].
• Adopt Ontologies: Use controlled vocabularies from plant-specific ontologies like the Plant Ontology (PO) for plant structures and growth stages, and the Gene Ontology (GO) for gene function. This ensures semantic alignment [69] [72].
• Leverage Template Tools: To bridge the gap between the flexibility of spreadsheets and the need for standardized metadata, use tools like:
  • SWATE (Swate Workflow Annotation Tool for Excel): Integrates directly into Excel, allowing ontology-driven metadata annotation [72].
  • CEDAR Workbench: Provides templates for creating standards-compliant metadata and includes validation features [72].
• Validate Early: Use validation tools to check your metadata for missing required fields, typos, and ontology term compliance before submitting data to public repositories [72].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Materials & Workflows

Key Research Reagent Solutions

The following reagents and materials are critical for controlling technical variation in plant omics experiments.

Item	Function in Batch Effect Control
Standardized Reference RNA	A pooled RNA sample from your study's organism/tissue used as an inter-batch calibration standard to track and correct for technical performance across runs [64].
DNA/RNA Extraction Kits (Same Lot)	Consistent reagent lots minimize protocol-level variability introduced by different enzyme efficiencies or chemical purity [64].
Library Preparation Kits (Same Lot)	Using kits from the same manufacturing lot is crucial for reducing batch effects stemming from the library prep stage [64].
Indexing Barcodes	Unique molecular barcodes allow multiple samples to be pooled and sequenced in a single lane, physically eliminating a major source of batch effects [66].
Spike-in Controls	Adding known quantities of foreign RNA or DNA (e.g., from the External RNA Controls Consortium, ERCC) helps in normalizing for technical noise [64].
CK2-IN-8	CK2-IN-8, MF:C11H12N2O2S2, MW:268.4 g/mol

Standardized Experimental Workflow for Batch Effect Management

The following diagram outlines a robust workflow for managing batch effects, from experimental design to data validation.

Decision Workflow for Batch Effect Correction

This diagram provides a logical pathway for choosing and validating a batch effect correction strategy.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is mosaic integration and how does it differ from other multi-omics integration strategies? Mosaic integration is a specific approach used when your experimental design involves multiple datasets where each has profiled a different, overlapping combination of omics modalities. For example, one sample may have transcriptomics and proteomics data, another has transcriptomics and epigenomics, and a third has proteomics and epigenomics. Unlike "vertical integration" (all omics from the same cell) or "diagonal integration" (different omics from different cells), mosaic integration leverages the sufficient commonality across these partially overlapping samples to create a unified representation. Tools like StabMap and COBOLT are designed for this specific challenge. [47]

2. My plant multi-omics data comes from different labs and has different formats. What is the first step I should take? The critical first step is data standardization and harmonization. This process ensures data from different omics technologies and platforms are compatible.

• Standardization involves collecting, processing, and storing data consistently using agreed-upon protocols and formats, such as those outlined by the Minimum Information About a Plant Phenotyping Experiment (MIAPPE). [73]
• Harmonization involves aligning data from different sources onto a common scale, which may involve using domain-specific ontologies like the Crop Ontology or statistical methods to remove technical biases and batch effects. [74] [73] It is good practice to release both raw and preprocessed data in public repositories to ensure full reproducibility. [74]

3. What are the most common technical pitfalls in multi-omics data fusion, and how can I avoid them? Common pitfalls include:

• High Dimensionality and Heterogeneity: Each omics type (genomics, transcriptomics, etc.) has unique data scales, formats, and noise profiles. Preprocessing steps like normalization and transformation are essential for each dataset before integration. [75] [47]
• Missing Data: Metabolomics and proteomics often have missing data points due to technological limitations. Single-cell techniques can have high dropout rates. Robust imputation methods or tool selection should be part of the experimental design. [75]
• Batch Effects: Systematic technical variations from different reagents, technicians, or sequencing machines can obscure true biological signals. Statistical correction methods like ComBat and careful experimental design are crucial to mitigate this. [74] [76]
• Ignoring the User Perspective: Designing an integrated resource solely from the data curator's view can make it difficult for other analysts to use. Always consider the end-user's needs and real-use case scenarios during project design. [74]

4. Which deep learning tools are accessible for researchers without extensive programming experience? Flexynesis is a recently developed deep learning toolkit that addresses this exact need. It is available on user-friendly platforms like PyPi, Bioconda, and the Galaxy Server, making it more accessible. Flexynesis streamlines data processing, feature selection, and hyperparameter tuning, and allows users to choose from deep learning architectures or classical machine learning methods through a standardized interface. [77]

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Integrating Unmatched Multi-omics Data from Different Cell Populations

Challenge: You need to integrate data where different omics layers (e.g., transcriptomics and chromatin accessibility) were measured in different cells from the same sample or different experiments. The cell cannot be used as a direct anchor. [47]

Solution: Use tools designed for "diagonal" or unmatched integration that project cells from different modalities into a co-embedded space to find commonality.

• Recommended Tool: GLUE (Graph-Linked Unified Embedding). This method uses a graph variational autoencoder and incorporates prior biological knowledge to link and align different omic data types, enabling even triple-omic integration. [47]
• Workflow:
  • Input Preparation: Ensure each omics dataset is preprocessed and normalized individually.
  • Prior Knowledge Incorporation: GLUE uses a knowledge graph of known interactions between features across omics layers (e.g., gene-to-transcription-factor relationships) to guide the integration.
  • Model Training: The model learns a unified, low-dimensional embedding where cells from different modalities are aligned based on the biological prior.
  • Downstream Analysis: Use the resulting integrated embedding for clustering, visualization, and trajectory inference.

Problem: Managing Complex Experimental Designs with Mosaic Data

Challenge: Your project involves multiple datasets, each with a unique combination of omics assays, creating a mosaic of data that needs to be unified.

Solution: Employ specialized tools that can handle mosaic integration by leveraging the overlapping features across datasets.

• Recommended Tools:

  • StabMap: A method for mosaic data integration that can project cells from a complex set of experiments into a common reference space. [47]
  • COBOLT: Uses a multimodal variational autoencoder to integrate mRNA and chromatin accessibility data in a mosaic fashion. [47]

• Protocol for Mosaic Integration with COBOLT:

  • Data Matrix Construction: Organize your data, ensuring that genes are treated as biological units and omics measurements (expression, methylation) are variables. [78]
  • Data Preprocessing: Handle missing values, remove outliers, and normalize data for each modality and dataset separately. [78]
  • Model Application: Input the different datasets with their respective omics types into COBOLT. The model will learn a joint representation across all cells, filling in missing modalities based on the patterns learned from overlapping data.
  • Validation: Validate the integration by checking if biologically similar cells cluster together and by examining the reconstruction accuracy of held-out data.

Experimental Protocols for Multi-omic Workflows

A Six-Step Tutorial for Genomic Data Integration

This protocol, adapted from a plant case study, provides a general framework for robust data integration. [78]

1. Design the Data Matrix: Structure your data with 'biological units' (e.g., genes) in rows and 'variables' (e.g., expression levels, methylation values) in columns. This format is versatile for integrating data from a single individual or across multiple populations. [78]

2. Formulate the Biological Question: Clearly define your objective, which typically falls into one of three categories:

• Description: Understanding major interplay between variables (e.g., how does DNA methylation impact gene expression?).
• Selection: Identifying key biomarkers (e.g., genes with contrasting methylation and expression patterns).
• Prediction: Inferring missing variables in new samples based on established models. [78]

3. Select an Appropriate Tool: Choose a tool based on your data types and biological question. The following table summarizes some key options:

Tool Name	Methodology	Integration Capacity	Best For
mixOmics (R)	Multivariate dimension reduction (PCA, PLS) [78]	Multiple datasets (bulk)	Description, Selection, Prediction [78]
MOFA+	Factor analysis	Matched mRNA, DNA methylation, chromatin accessibility	Uncovering hidden sources of variation
GLUE	Variational autoencoders	Unmatched chromatin accessibility, DNA methylation, mRNA	Integrating data with prior knowledge
StabMap	Mosaic data integration	mRNA, chromatin accessibility across disparate datasets	Complex experimental designs

4. Preprocess the Data:

• Missing Values: Decide on a strategy: deletion (if few) or imputation (using k-nearest neighbors, mean/median, or more advanced methods). [75] [78]
• Outliers: Identify and remove if they are due to errors, or retain if they represent true biological rarity. [78]
• Normalization: Apply technique-specific normalization (e.g., TPM for RNA-seq, intensity normalization for proteomics) to make data comparable. [76] [78]
• Batch Effect Correction: Use methods like ComBat or others to remove technical variation introduced by different batches. [74]

5. Conduct Preliminary Single-Omics Analysis: Before integration, perform descriptive statistics and analyze each omics dataset individually. This helps understand the data structure, identify patterns, and prevent misinterpretation during integration. [78]

6. Execute Data Integration: Run the chosen integration tool (e.g., mixOmics). Use visualization outputs like sample plots and variable plots to interpret the relationships between biological units and omics variables. [78]

Diagram 1: A generalized workflow for integrating mosaic multi-omics datasets, from initial data organization to final validation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Category	Item / Standard	Function / Explanation
Community Standards	MIAPPE (Min. Information About a Plant Phenotyping Experiment) [73]	A structural standard for organizing plant phenotyping and related omics datasets and metadata.
	Breeding API (BrAPI) [73]	A technical standard (web service API) for efficient data exchange between plant breeding databases and tools.
	Crop Ontology [73]	A semantic standard providing controlled vocabularies and trait definitions for describing plant data.
Software & Tools	Flexynesis [77]	A deep learning toolkit for bulk multi-omics integration, designed for accessibility on platforms like Galaxy.
	mixOmics (R package) [78]	A multivariate statistical toolbox for the exploration and integration of multiple omics datasets.
	MultiPower [75]	An open-source tool for estimating the optimal sample size for multi-omics experiments during study design.

Diagram 2: A decision tree for selecting multi-omics integration tools based on the structure of the input data.

Technical Support Center

Troubleshooting Guides

Guide 1: Troubleshooting Low Yield in Plant Omics Sequencing Libraries

Problem: Unexpectedly low final library yield following NGS library preparation for plant transcriptomic or genomic studies.

Symptoms:

• Library concentrations are low when measured by fluorometric methods (e.g., Qubit) [49].
• Electropherogram traces show broad or faint peaks, missing target fragment sizes, or dominance of adapter peaks [49].
• High levels of adapter-dimer peaks appear (~70-90 bp) [49].

Diagnostic Flow:

• Check Input Quality: Verify RNA/DNA integrity and purity. Degraded plant nucleic acid or contaminants (polysaccharides, phenolics) can inhibit enzymes [49].
• Validate Quantification: Compare fluorometric (Qubit) with spectrophotometric (NanoDrop) readings. UV absorbance can overestimate concentration due to contaminants [49].
• Inspect Electropherogram: Look for the characteristic sharp peak of adapter dimers or an uneven fragment size distribution [49].
• Review Reagent Logs: Confirm the activity of enzymes (ligase, polymerase) and freshness of reaction buffers [49].

Solutions:

Root Cause	Corrective Action
Poor Input Quality	Re-purify plant sample using clean columns or beads; ensure high purity (260/230 > 1.8) [49].
Quantification Error	Use fluorometric methods (Qubit) for template quantification; calibrate pipettes [49].
Fragmentation Bias	Optimize fragmentation parameters (time, energy) for specific plant tissue type; GC-rich regions may require adjustment [49].
Suboptimal Adapter Ligation	Titrate adapter-to-insert molar ratio; ensure fresh ligase and optimal reaction temperature [49].
Overly Aggressive Cleanup	Adjust bead-to-sample ratio during purification to avoid loss of desired fragments [49].

Guide 2: Addressing Inconsistent Results in Cross-Species Translation

Problem: Inability to reliably translate findings or biosynthetic pathways from the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana to a crop species.

Symptoms:

• A gene or metabolic pathway characterized in Arabidopsis has no obvious or functional ortholog in the target crop [46].
• Heterologous expression of Arabidopsis genes in a crop system does not reproduce the expected metabolic phenotype [46].

Diagnostic Flow:

• Check for Genomic Context: Investigate if the genes of interest are part of a biosynthetic gene cluster in Arabidopsis but are scattered in the crop genome, or vice versa [51].
• Analyze Multi-omics Correlation: Perform co-expression analysis on crop-specific transcriptomic and metabolomic data—don't rely solely on Arabidopsis expression patterns [51].
• Verify Enzyme Function: Biochemically validate that the candidate ortholog enzyme in the crop species catalyzes the same reaction as in Arabidopsis, as substrate specificity may differ [46].

Solutions:

Root Cause	Corrective Action
Divergent Evolution	Use crop-specific omics data (genomics, transcriptomics) to identify the actual genes involved via co-expression with the target metabolite [46] [51].
Missing Regulatory Elements	Identify and test crop-specific promoter and terminator sequences for transgene expression instead of using Arabidopsis regulatory elements [46].
Incorrect Ortholog Assignment	Use advanced phylogenomic tools (e.g., OrthoFinder) for more accurate ortholog detection rather than simple BLAST [51].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: What are the most critical metadata elements to ensure our plant omics data is reproducible?

The most critical elements span the entire data lifecycle [13]:

• Reagent Metadata: Precise details on plant genotype, accession, growth conditions, and sampling protocol (e.g., developmental stage, tissue type) [79] [13].
• Technical Metadata: Information automatically generated by instruments (sequencer, mass spectrometer), including software versions and settings [13].
• Experimental Metadata: The detailed, step-by-step experimental protocol and assay conditions [13].
• Analytical Metadata: Software names and versions, quality control parameters, and scripts used for data analysis [13] [80].
• Dataset-level Metadata: Research objectives, investigator details, and funding sources [13].

FAQ 2: Our lab is new to omics. How can we easily start implementing metadata standards?

Begin by adopting a few key practices:

• Use Community Ontologies: Always use controlled vocabularies like Plant Ontology (PO) for plant structures and stages and Gene Ontology (GO) for gene functions [81] [13].
• Implement Electronic Lab Notebooks (ELNs): Use ELNs to digitally document hypotheses, experiments, and analyses in a structured way [13].
• Create README Files: For each dataset, include a text file describing the project structure, data files, and any abbreviations used [13].
• Follow FAIR Principles: Make your data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable by using public repositories that require rich metadata upon submission [51].

FAQ 3: We have inconsistent results between technicians when preparing RNA-Seq libraries. How can we improve consistency?

This is a common issue rooted in protocol deviation [49].

• Standardize with SOPs: Create highly detailed, step-by-step Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Use visual aids and highlight critical steps in bold or color [49].
• Use Master Mixes: Prepare single master mixes for reactions (e.g., PCR, ligation) to reduce pipetting variation between technicians [49].
• Implement Checklists: Introduce a step-by-step checklist for technicians to initial as they complete each part of the protocol [49].
• Introduce "Waste Plates": Use a temporary "waste plate" to hold supernatants before discarding, allowing for recovery in case of a pipetting error [49].

FAQ 4: What is the difference between a controlled vocabulary and an ontology?

Both are standards, but with increasing complexity:

• Controlled Vocabulary: A simple, predefined list of allowed terms (e.g., a list of approved tissue names like "leaf," "root," "stem") [81] [13].
• Ontology: A more advanced controlled vocabulary that not only defines terms but also describes the relationships between them (e.g., "leaf is_a plant organ," "leaf part_of shoot system") [81] [13]. Ontologies enable more powerful computation and data integration.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Plant Omics

This table details key materials and tools for conducting reproducible plant omics research.

Item	Function
CDISC-Compliant Templates	Standardized templates for data collection forms, ensuring consistency and regulatory compliance from the start of a study [82].
Electronic Lab Notebook (ELN)	A digital platform for documenting hypotheses, experiments, and analyses, superior to paper notebooks for ensuring metadata is recorded and searchable [13].
Controlled Vocabularies & Ontologies	Community-standardized terms (e.g., Plant Ontology, Gene Ontology) that prevent ambiguity when annotating data, ensuring interoperability [81] [79].
Protocols.io	A tool for creating, managing, and sharing detailed, executable research protocols, which are a core component of experimental metadata [13].
Nicotiana benthamiana	A model plant species commonly used for the rapid, transient heterologous expression of multiple plant biosynthetic genes to functionally characterize them [51].

Experimental Workflows and Data Relationships

Experimental and Data Workflow in Plant Omics

Metadata Management Framework

Benchmarking Success: Validating Standards and Comparative Analysis of Frameworks

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: Why do my complex foundation models underperform compared to simple baselines in perturbation prediction? This is a documented issue where simple models like a Train Mean baseline (predicting the average expression from training data) or Random Forest Regressors using Gene Ontology (GO) features can outperform large, pre-trained transformer models like scGPT and scFoundation in predicting post-perturbation gene expression profiles [83]. The primary cause is often related to the low perturbation-specific variance in common benchmark datasets (e.g., Perturb-seq), making them suboptimal for evaluating sophisticated models. It is recommended to validate your model against these simple baselines and ensure your evaluation focuses on metrics in the differential expression space (Pearson Delta), which better captures the perturbation effect, rather than raw gene expression correlation [83].

FAQ 2: What are the critical metrics for a comprehensive model benchmark? Relying on a single metric like Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) can be misleading. A robust benchmarking framework should include a suite of metrics that evaluate different aspects of model performance [84]:

• Model Fit Metrics: Such as RMSE or Mean Absolute Error (MAE) to assess the direct accuracy of expression value predictions.
• Rank Metrics: These evaluate the model's ability to correctly order perturbations by a desired effect (e.g., reversing a disease state), which is crucial for in-silico screens. They are also effective at detecting model collapse [84].
• Distributional Metrics: Like Energy Distance or Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD), to assess whether the predicted distribution of cellular responses matches the ground truth [84]. Performance should be evaluated not just on raw expression but also on differential expression and the accuracy of predicting the top differentially expressed genes [83].

FAQ 3: My model suffers from 'mode collapse'. What does this mean and how can I fix it? "Mode collapse" or "posterior collapse" in this context refers to a model failure where the predictions become overly simplistic and fail to capture the full diversity of cellular responses to a perturbation [84]. The model might predict nearly identical expression profiles for different perturbations. To address this:

• Incorporate rank-based metrics into your evaluation, as they are particularly sensitive to this failure mode [84].
• Consider using architectural strategies like disentanglement, which separates the unperturbed cellular state from the perturbation effect, helping to generate more diverse and accurate counterfactual predictions [84].

FAQ 4: How can I ensure my plant single-cell omics data is reusable for future models and benchmarks? Adherence to metadata standards is paramount for data reusability, which is a core challenge in integrative microbiome and plant omics research [25] [3]. You should:

• Use the MIxS (Minimum Information about any (x) Sequence) checklists when submitting data to public repositories [3].
• Follow the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) for data management [25] [3].
• Provide comprehensive metadata, including detailed sample preparation methods (e.g., protoplast vs. nucleus isolation, enzymatic digestion protocols) and sequencing technical details, as these factors significantly impact results and comparability [85] [3].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Poor Generalization to Unseen Cell Types or Perturbations Issue: Your model, trained on one set of cell types or single perturbations, performs poorly when applied to novel cell types or combinatorial perturbations. Solution:

• Re-evaluate Your Task Setup: Ensure your benchmarking tasks, like Covariate Transfer (predicting effects in unseen cell types) and Combo Prediction (predicting effects of combined perturbations), are clearly defined and the data is split accordingly to avoid data leakage [84].
• Incorporate Biological Prior Knowledge: Enhance your model's feature set. Using Gene Ontology (GO) vectors or embeddings from models like scELMO (which uses LLMs to generate gene descriptions) in a Random Forest model has been shown to significantly boost performance on unseen data [83].
• Scale Your Data: Simpler model architectures often scale better with larger datasets. If possible, increase the diversity and volume of your training data, as this can improve generalization [84].

Problem: Inconsistent Benchmarking Results Across Studies Issue: You cannot compare your model's performance with published literature due to inconsistent benchmarks. Solution:

• Use Standardized Frameworks: Leverage community-developed benchmarking platforms like PerturBench, which provide curated datasets, defined tasks, and a consistent set of metrics for fair comparison [84].
• Report Multiple Metrics: Always report performance across a comprehensive set of metrics (e.g., RMSE, rank correlation, Pearson Delta) to provide a holistic view of your model's strengths and weaknesses [83] [84].
• Publish Detailed Metadata: For plant-specific studies, standardize sample preparation descriptions. The table below outlines key reagents and their roles in plant single-cell protocols [85].

Table: Essential Research Reagents for Plant Single-Cell RNA-seq

Reagent / Material	Function in Experiment
Cell Wall Digesting Enzymes	Degrades the rigid plant cell wall to isolate protoplasts for sequencing [85].
Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorter (FACS)	Separates and purifies individual protoplasts or nuclei, especially from tough tissues like xylem [85].
10x Genomics Barcoded Beads	Within droplets, these beads capture mRNA from single cells, containing barcodes (UMIs) to track individual transcripts [85].
Seurat / SCANPY Software	Standard tools for downstream scRNA-seq data analysis, including filtering, normalization, clustering, and cell type annotation [85].

Problem: Handling Technical Variation in Plant Single-Cell Samples Issue: Gene expression profiles are skewed due to the stress of protoplast isolation or inefficient digestion of certain cell types. Solution:

• Choose the Right Sample Prep: For tissues with robust cell walls (e.g., xylem) or when enzymatic digestion significantly alters gene expression, switch to single-nucleus RNA-seq (snRNA-seq). Isolating nuclei avoids the need for cell wall digestion and minimizes stress-induced artifacts [85].
• Implement Rigorous Quality Control: Use tools like Cell Ranger and follow standard QC pipelines to filter out damaged cells or those with low transcript counts (e.g., Fraction Reads in Cells < 85%) [85].
• Document Your Protocol in Metadata: Clearly report the sample preparation method (protoplast vs. nucleus), digestion enzymes used, and digestion time. This is critical for the reuse and correct interpretation of your data in larger, integrative analyses [85] [3].

Experimental Protocols & Data Presentation

Key Benchmarking Methodology for Perturbation Prediction

The following workflow outlines a standard protocol for evaluating foundation models on perturbation prediction tasks, synthesizing methods from cited studies [83] [84].

Model Performance Comparison Table

Table: Benchmarking Results of Foundation Models vs. Baselines on Perturbation Prediction (Pearson Delta Metric) [83]

Model / Dataset	Adamson	Norman	Replogle (K562)	Replogle (RPE1)
Train Mean (Baseline)	0.711	0.557	0.373	0.628
scGPT	0.641	0.554	0.327	0.596
scFoundation	0.552	0.459	0.269	0.471
Random Forest (GO Features)	0.739	0.586	0.480	0.648

Standardized Plant Single-Cell RNA-seq Protocol

Plant-pathogen interactions represent complex biological systems where single-omics approaches often provide incomplete insights. While traditional single-omics methods (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, or metabolomics) have been informative, they are limited in capturing the dynamic molecular interplay between host and pathogen [60]. Multi-omics strategies offer a powerful solution by integrating complementary data types, enabling a more comprehensive view of the molecular networks and pathways involved in disease progression and defense mechanisms [60]. This case study examines the transition from single-omics limitations to integrated approaches, providing troubleshooting guidance and methodological frameworks for researchers investigating plant-pathogen systems.

The fundamental challenge in plant-pathogen research lies in the inherent complexity of "pathosystems," where features of both host and pathogen shift when they interact, creating emergent properties not observable when studying either organism in isolation [60]. Multi-omics approaches are particularly well-suited to studying these systems as they enable simultaneous profiling of both host and pathogen, revealing co-evolutionary patterns and regulatory networks often missed by single-omics approaches [60].

Troubleshooting Common Multi-Omics Experimental Challenges

Library Preparation and Sequencing Issues

Problem: Low Library Yield or Quality Symptoms: Low sequencing coverage, failed quality control metrics, or insufficient material for downstream omics assays. Solutions:

• Verify input nucleic acid quality using multiple quantification methods (fluorometric vs. absorbance) [49]
• Re-purify samples to remove contaminants (phenol, salts, EDTA) that inhibit enzymes [49]
• Optimize fragmentation parameters to avoid over- or under-shearing [49]
• Titrate adapter-to-insert molar ratios to prevent adapter dimer formation [49]

Problem: Inconsistent Results Between Technical Replicates Symptoms: High variability in data quality metrics between replicate samples processed simultaneously. Solutions:

• Implement master mixes to reduce pipetting errors [49]
• Standardize purification protocols across operators [49]
• Introduce checklists and standardized operating procedures for critical steps [49]
• Verify reagent lot consistency and enzyme activity [49]

Data Integration and Analytical Challenges

Problem: Discrepancies Between Omics Layers Symptoms: Lack of correlation between transcriptomic and proteomic data, or between genomic and metabolomic findings. Solutions:

• Account for biological timing differences between mRNA expression and protein translation [60]
• Implement temporal sampling to capture dynamic molecular events [86]
• Apply normalization methods that consider technical variability across platforms [87]
• Validate key findings with orthogonal methods (e.g., qPCR, Western blot) [86]

Problem: Inability to Resolve Host-Pathogen Molecular Interactions Symptoms: Difficulty attributing molecular signatures to host versus pathogen origins. Solutions:

• Leverage reference genomes for both organisms to improve mapping specificity [60]
• Apply computational separation techniques that exploit sequence differences [88]
• Utilize single-cell or spatial omics to maintain cellular context [60] [89]
• Implement cross-species network inference algorithms [87]

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Multi-Omics Implementation

Q: What are the most critical validation steps when transitioning from single-omics to multi-omics approaches?

A: Successful multi-omics validation requires both technical and biological verification. Technically, ensure cross-platform reproducibility by running quality controls specific to each omics technology. Biologically, prioritize functional validation through mutant analysis, gene silencing, or heterologous expression systems. When Balotf et al. (2024) observed discordance between highly upregulated genes in resistant potato cultivars and their corresponding protein levels, it highlighted the necessity of cross-omics validation to avoid misinterpretation [60].

Q: How can researchers effectively manage the computational demands of multi-omics integration?

A: Computational challenges can be mitigated through several strategies: (1) Implement cloud-based solutions for scalable processing; (2) Utilize modular analysis pipelines that process each omics layer separately before integration; (3) Apply dimension reduction techniques prior to integration; (4) Leverage specialized multi-omics platforms like Plant Reactome for contextualization [90]. For novice bioinformaticians, established protocols are available that provide step-by-step guidance for integrative network inference [87].

Q: What strategies exist for integrating temporal and spatial dynamics in multi-omics studies of plant-pathogen interactions?

A: Temporal integration requires carefully designed time-series experiments that capture critical transition points in disease progression. Spatial integration can be achieved through emerging technologies like spatial transcriptomics, which maintains morphological context while profiling gene expression [60] [89]. For intracellular resolution, single-cell RNA sequencing enables examination of gene expression at individual cell levels, revealing diversity within cell populations during infection [60].

Q: How can AI and machine learning be responsibly applied to multi-omics data integration?

A: AI/ML applications must address several considerations: avoid "black box" models through interpretable ML approaches, prevent data leakage by ensuring training and validation sets remain separate, balance model complexity to avoid overfitting, and account for batch effects through careful experimental design [89]. When properly implemented, AI can predict microbial community dynamics, identify plant health biomarkers, and optimize microbial consortia for enhanced plant immunity [86].

Standardized Methodologies for Multi-Omics Experimental Workflows

Reference Protocol: Multi-Omics Network Inference

This protocol provides a standardized approach for integrating transcriptomics and proteomics data to reconstruct plant-pathogen interaction networks, adapted from established methodologies [87].

Sample Preparation Phase:

• Biological Material Collection: Collect infected plant tissue and appropriate controls across multiple time points (e.g., 0, 6, 12, 24, 48 hours post-infection)
• Sample Division: Split each sample for separate transcriptomic and proteomic analyses to maintain paired observations
• RNA Extraction & Library Prep: Extract total RNA using validated kits, assess RIN >8.0, prepare stranded mRNA sequencing libraries
• Protein Extraction & Prep: Extract proteins using denaturing conditions, digest with trypsin, desalt peptides, label if using multiplexed approaches

Data Generation Phase:

• Transcriptomics: Sequence on Illumina platform (minimum 30M reads/sample, 150bp paired-end)
• Proteomics: Analyze using LC-MS/MS with data-independent acquisition (DIA) for comprehensive coverage

Computational Integration Phase:

• Preprocessing: Quality control, adapter trimming, alignment to combined host-pathogen reference
• Normalization: Apply platform-specific normalization (e.g., TPM for RNA, median normalization for proteins)
• Network Inference: Use integrative algorithms (e.g., MIDAR, iOmicsPASS) to construct cross-omics networks
• Visualization: Implement in Cytoscape or Plant Reactome for biological context [90]

Quality Control Checkpoints

Table: Multi-Omics QC Metrics and Thresholds

Analysis Type	QC Metric	Acceptance Threshold	Corrective Action
Transcriptomics	RNA Integrity Number	RIN ≥ 8.0	Re-extract if degraded
	Mapping Rate	≥85% to reference	Check reference compatibility
	3' Bias	≤1.5 for mRNA-seq	Optimize fragmentation
Proteomics	Protein Identification	≥5000 proteins/sample	Optimize digestion
	Missing Values	≤20% in study design	Improve sample prep
	CV Technical Replicates	≤15%	Standardize processing
Integration	Cross-omics Correlation	Significant (p<0.05)	Check sample alignment

Visualization of Multi-Omics Workflows and Signaling Pathways

Experimental Workflow for Plant-Pathogen Multi-Omics Studies

Plant Immune Signaling Pathways in Pathogen Interactions

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Table: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Plant-Pathogen Multi-Omics Studies

Reagent/Platform	Function	Application Notes
Illumina NovaSeq X Series	Production-scale sequencing	Enables multiple omics on single instrument with broad coverage [91]
Plant Reactome Knowledgebase	Pathway analysis & data visualization	Curated reference pathways from rice with orthology-based projections to 129 species [90]
Single-cell 3' RNA Prep	Single-cell transcriptomics	Accessible, scalable solution for mRNA capture without cell isolation instrument [91]
CRISPR-Cas9 systems	Functional validation	Precise gene editing for validating candidate genes from multi-omics studies [88]
Illumina Connected Multiomics	Integrated data analysis	Software for multi-omics data interpretation, visualization, and biological context [91]
DRAGEN Secondary Analysis	NGS data processing	Accurate, comprehensive secondary analysis of next-generation sequencing data [91]
CITE-Seq (Cellular Indexing)	Multiplexed proteomics & transcriptomics	Provides proteomic and transcriptomic data in single run powered by NGS [91]
Correlation Engine	Knowledge base integration	Puts private multi-omics data into biological context with curated public data [91]

The integration of multi-omics approaches represents a paradigm shift in plant-pathogen research, moving beyond the limitations of single-omics studies to provide systems-level understanding. By adopting standardized methodologies, implementing robust troubleshooting protocols, and leveraging emerging computational frameworks, researchers can overcome traditional challenges in data integration and biological interpretation. The future of plant-pathogen studies lies in the continued development of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles, enhanced spatial omics technologies, and AI-driven analytical approaches that together will accelerate the translation of molecular insights into sustainable agricultural solutions [60] [90] [86]. As these technologies become increasingly accessible and affordable, multi-omics strategies will become indispensable tools for investigating complex plant-pathogen interactions and addressing global food security challenges.

Technical Support Center: Frameworks for Plant Omics Data

FAQs on Omics Standardization Frameworks

1. What are the core components of an Omics data sharing standard? Omics data standards are generally built from four key components: experiment description standards (minimum information guidelines), data exchange standards (format and models), terminology standards (ontologies and controlled vocabularies), and experiment execution standards (physical reference materials and quality metrics) [4].

2. Why is community adoption critical for a standardization framework? A standard that is not widely used fails in its primary purpose. Successful adoption requires that the benefits of using the standard outweigh the costs of learning and implementing it. This is often driven by journal and funding agency requirements, as seen with the MIAME standard, which was widely adopted after journals made compliance a precondition for publication [4].

3. How can scalability challenges in bioinformatics be addressed? Scalability, defined as a program's ability to handle increasing workloads, is a central challenge. Conceptually, a "divide-and-conquer" methodology is key. This can be effectively implemented using modern cloud computing and big data programming frameworks like MapReduce and Spark for distributed computing. For specific tools like BLAST, "dual segmentation" methods that split both query and reference databases can achieve massive parallelization [92] [93].

4. What are common causes of failure in NGS library preparation? Sequencing preparation failures often fall into predictable categories. The table below outlines major issues, their signals, and primary causes [49].

Problem Category	Typical Failure Signals	Common Root Causes
Sample Input / Quality	Low starting yield; smear in electropherogram; low library complexity	Degraded DNA/RNA; sample contaminants; inaccurate quantification [49].
Fragmentation / Ligation	Unexpected fragment size; inefficient ligation; adapter-dimer peaks	Over-shearing or under-shearing; improper buffer conditions; suboptimal adapter-to-insert ratio [49].
Amplification / PCR	Overamplification artifacts; bias; high duplicate rate	Too many PCR cycles; inefficient polymerase; primer exhaustion [49].
Purification / Cleanup	Incomplete removal of small fragments; sample loss; carryover of salts	Wrong bead ratio; bead over-drying; inefficient washing; pipetting error [49].

5. How do standardization frameworks support translational plant research? Frameworks enable the crucial translation of knowledge from model organisms like Arabidopsis thaliana to crops. By providing comprehensive and integrated omics data from diverse conditions, these standards help identify whether inconsistencies in translation are due to unique biological mechanisms or limitations in experimental design, thereby informing better breeding decisions [46].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: Low Yield in Plant Omics Library Preparation

• Step 1: Verify the Yield: Compare quantification methods (e.g., Qubit vs. qPCR) to confirm the low yield is not an artifact of measurement [49].
• Step 2: Check Input Quality: Re-purify the plant input sample if contaminants (phenol, salts, polysaccharides) are suspected. Ensure purity ratios (260/230 > 1.8) are met [49].
• Step 3: Review Fragmentation & Ligation: Optimize fragmentation parameters for tough plant tissues. Titrate adapter-to-insert molar ratios to ensure efficient ligation [49].
• Step 4: Assess Cleanup Steps: Avoid overly aggressive size selection that leads to loss. Confirm bead-to-sample ratios and that beads are not over-dried, which impedes resuspension [49].

Issue 2: Scaling BLAST Analysis for Large Plant Genomes

• Symptom: BLAST jobs for large plant genomes (which are often polyploid) fail or take impractically long times to complete [46] [93].
• Solution - Implement Dual Segmentation:
  • Find the number of sequences (dbseqnum) in your reference database using blastdbcmd –info [93].
  • Split your query and reference databases into M and N subsets, respectively. Ensure each pair of subsets is small enough to fit into the memory of a compute node [93].
  • Generate all unique pairs of query and database subsets.
  • Launch an array job of M x N tasks on your HPC cluster, with each task running BLAST on one pair [93].
  • Consolidate the partial results from all tasks for the final output. This method can reduce wallclock time from weeks to hours [93].

Issue 3: Inconsistent Metadata Hinders Data Reuse

• Symptom: Difficulty integrating or interpreting plant omics data from different sources or even different lab members.
• Solution:
  • Adopt Minimum Information Standards: Use guidelines like MIAME (for transcriptomics) or MIAPE (for proteomics) as a checklist to ensure all necessary experimental details are captured [4].
  • Use Controlled Vocabularies: Employ community ontologies (e.g., MGED Ontology, Plant Ontology) to describe samples, treatments, and anatomical parts, ensuring consistent terminology [4].
  • Leverage Data Repositories: Submit data to public repositories like ArrayExpress or GEO, which require and enforce standard formats, making your data more accessible and reusable for the community [4].

Experimental Protocols & Methodologies

Protocol 1: Dual Segmentation for High-Throughput BLAST

Objective: To achieve massive parallelization of BLAST searches for large-scale plant genomics data [93].

Materials:

• High-Performance Computing (HPC) cluster
• BLAST+ software package (modified version)
• Query sequences (e.g., from plant RNA-Seq)
• Reference sequence database (e.g., GenBank)

Methodology:

• Database Information Retrieval: Use blastdbcmd -info -db your_database to get the effective number of sequences (dbseqnum) [93].
• Database Segmentation: Split both the query file and the reference database into multiple segments. The number of segments should be chosen so that the memory requirements for processing any single segment pair are manageable by a single compute node [93].
• Job Array Submission: Formulate and submit an array job where each task corresponds to one unique pair of query and database segments.
• Result Consolidation: After all individual tasks complete, concatenate and process the output files to generate a unified result file, ensuring statistical measures like Expectation values are calculated correctly using the original full dbseqnum [93].

Visualization of Dual Segmentation Workflow:

Protocol 2: Troubleshooting Low Library Yield from Plant Tissue

Objective: To diagnose and correct factors leading to insufficient yield in NGS library preparation from plant samples [49].

Materials:

• Fluorometer (e.g., Qubit) and quality analyzer (e.g., BioAnalyzer)
• Solid-phase reversible immobilization (SPRI) beads
• Fresh purification columns and wash buffers
• Master mixes to reduce pipetting error

Methodology:

• Quantification Cross-Validation: Quantify the library using both fluorometric (Qubit) and quality control (BioAnalyzer) methods. A large discrepancy may indicate the presence of contaminants or adapter dimers [49].
• Input Quality Audit: Check the purity of the initial plant nucleic acid extract via absorbance ratios (260/280 and 260/230). Re-purify the input material if contaminants are detected [49].
• Ligation Optimization: If adapter dimers are dominant, titrate the adapter-to-insert molar ratio in the ligation reaction. Ensure ligase buffer is fresh and the reaction is performed at the optimal temperature [49].
• Cleanup Verification: Re-perform the post-ligation cleanup step, carefully adhering to the recommended bead-to-sample ratio and incubation times. Avoid over-drying the bead pellet [49].

Visualization of Low Yield Diagnosis:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function / Application
SPRI Beads	Magnetic beads used for DNA size selection and purification during library prep. Incorrect bead-to-sample ratio is a major cause of yield loss or adapter dimer carryover [49].
Fluorometric Assays (Qubit)	For accurate quantification of nucleic acids. Preferred over UV absorbance (NanoDrop) as it is specific to DNA/RNA and less affected by contaminants [49].
Adapter Oligos	Short, double-stranded DNA molecules ligated to fragmented DNA, enabling sequencing and indexing. The molar ratio of adapter to insert is critical for efficiency [49].
BLAST+ Software	A fundamental tool for sequence search and alignment. For large plant genomes, its performance can be drastically improved via dual segmentation on an HPC cluster [93].
Nextflow	A workflow DSL that simplifies writing scalable and reproducible computational pipelines, making it easier to manage complex bioinformatics analyses [94].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Our multi-omics data doesn't integrate well, leading to inconsistent results. How can we improve data integration for more reliable predictions? A: Inconsistent multi-omics integration often stems from differences in data dimensionality, measurement scales, and noise levels across platforms. To address this:

• Use Model-Based Fusion: Move beyond simple data concatenation. Employ advanced statistical and machine learning methods like Bayesian hierarchical models or deep learning architectures that can capture non-linear and hierarchical interactions between omics layers (e.g., genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics) [95].
• Standardize Data Preprocessing: Implement standardized pipelines for each omics data type to ensure uniformity in data quality and normalization before integration [95].
• Leverage Specialized Tools: Utilize platforms like the multi-omics Cellular Overview in Pathway Tools (PTools), which allows simultaneous visualization and analysis of up to four omics datasets on organism-specific metabolic charts, helping to identify consistencies and discrepancies [96].

Q2: Our spreadsheet-based metadata often contains errors and doesn't comply with community standards, causing issues with data submission and reuse. What solutions exist? A: This is a common challenge. You can maintain the convenience of spreadsheets while ensuring quality by:

• Using Structured Templates: Employ customizable spreadsheet templates that are pre-configured to reflect community metadata standards (e.g., based on CEDAR Workbench templates) [72]. These templates can include dropdown menus with controlled terms from ontologies to minimize free-text entry errors.
• Implementing Validation Tools: After data entry, use interactive web-based validation tools (like those in the CEDAR/HuBMAP pipeline) to rapidly identify and fix errors in your metadata spreadsheets, ensuring strong compliance with reporting guidelines before submission [72].
• Exploring Integrated Plug-ins: For specific domains like plant research, tools like SWATE (integrated into Microsoft Excel) facilitate ontology-driven metadata annotation using controlled vocabularies [72].

Q3: How can we effectively visualize multiple types of omics data together to gain biological insights? A: Simultaneous visualization of multi-omics data is key to understanding complex interactions.

• Adopt Multi-Channel Visualization: Use tools that allow painting different omics datasets onto distinct visual channels of a single diagram. For example, in a metabolic network diagram, you can display transcriptomics data as reaction arrow color, proteomics as arrow thickness, and metabolomics as metabolite node color [96].
• Select the Right Diagram Type: Prefer tools that use automated, organism-specific metabolic network diagrams (e.g., PTools) over general graph layouts or manually drawn "uber" pathways. This ensures the diagram is both accurate and relevant to your specific study organism [96].
• Utilize Interactive Features: Leverage features like semantic zooming (which reveals more detail as you zoom in) and animation to explore data across different time points or conditions [96].

Q4: What are the biggest technical hurdles in adopting single-cell and spatial omics technologies in plant research, and how can we overcome them? A: The primary hurdles include plant cell wall complexity, which complicates protoplasting and can alter molecular profiles, and limited antibody resources for protein detection [97].

• Investigate Protoplast-Free Methods: For proteomics, consider alternatives like proximity labelling (e.g., using TurboID) to achieve cell-type-specific protein profiling without the need for protoplast isolation [97].
• Focus on Nuclei: For transcriptomics and chromatin accessibility, single-nucleus sequencing (snRNA-seq, snATAC-seq) is a well-established and effective workaround for difficult tissues [97].
• Engage with Community Efforts: Participate in and leverage resources from consortia like the Plant Spatiotemporal Omics Consortium (STOC Plant), which aim to establish standards, develop new methods, and create reference cell atlases to overcome these barriers [98].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue: Poor Performance in Genomic Prediction Models

Symptoms: Genomic selection (GS) models show low predictive accuracy for complex traits, even with high-quality genomic data.

Diagnostic Step	Action	Solution
Check Data Limitations	Determine if the trait's complexity is not fully captured by genomic markers alone.	Integrate complementary omics data. For example, add transcriptomic data to capture gene regulation or metabolomic data for downstream phenotypic effects [95].
Evaluate Integration Method	Review if you are using simple data concatenation.	Shift to model-based data fusion strategies (e.g., Bayesian models, deep learning) that are better at capturing non-additive and hierarchical interactions between omics layers [95].
Assess Data Quality	Verify the dimensionality, scale, and noise levels of your integrated omics datasets.	Apply rigorous preprocessing and standardization pipelines for each omics layer to ensure data quality and compatibility before integration [95].

Issue: Non-Compliant and Error-Prone Metadata

Symptoms: Metadata submissions are frequently rejected by repositories; datasets are difficult for others to find, access, or reuse (not FAIR).

Diagnostic Step	Action	Solution
Identify Error Types	Check for missing required fields, typos, or non-standard terms in spreadsheet cells.	Use spreadsheet templates with built-in validation (e.g., dropdowns from ontologies) to prevent common errors at the point of entry [72].
Validate Before Submission	Manually inspect spreadsheets for consistency and compliance, which is inefficient and error-prone.	Run spreadsheets through an automated, interactive validation and repair tool (e.g., the CEDAR-based validator) to quickly identify and correct errors [72].
Ensure Standard Adherence	Confirm if your metadata structure itself adheres to a community reporting guideline (e.g., MIAPPE for plant phenotyping).	Map your metadata attributes to a formal specification or reporting guideline and use tools that enforce this structure during data entry [72].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol for De Novo Prediction of Translation Initiation Sites (TISs) Using TISCalling

Objective: To identify and rank novel translational initiation sites (TISs), including both AUG and non-AUG start codons, in plant transcripts using mRNA sequence data, independent of ribosome profiling (Ribo-seq) data [99].

Materials:

• Software: TISCalling command-line package (available at: https://github.com/yenmr/TISCalling) or access to the web tool (https://predict.southerngenomics.org/TISCalling/) [99].
• Input Data: mRNA sequence data in FASTA format.
• Computing Environment: A standard computer for the web tool or a command-line capable environment (Linux/Mac) for the package.

Methodology:

• Data Preparation: Compile the mRNA transcript sequences of interest into a standard FASTA file.
• Model Selection: The TISCalling framework comes with pre-computed models trained on in vivo TIS data from plants like Arabidopsis and tomato. If using the command-line package, you can select the appropriate pre-trained model or generate a new one specific to your dataset [99].
• TIS Prediction:
  • Via Web Tool: Upload your FASTA file to the web portal. The tool will process the sequences and return a visualization of potential TISs along each transcript, complete with prediction scores.
  • Via Command Line: Run the TISCalling package with your FASTA file as input. The output will include a list of putative TISs and their associated prediction scores.
• Result Interpretation: The prediction score for each putative TIS reflects the model's confidence. Prioritize TISs with higher scores for further experimental validation. The tool also provides insights into important mRNA sequence features (e.g., nucleotide content, secondary structure) that influenced the prediction [99].

Protocol for Visualizing Multi-Omics Data on Metabolic Networks

Objective: To simultaneously visualize up to four types of omics data (e.g., transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics) on an organism-scale metabolic network diagram to identify pathway-level changes [96].

Materials:

• Software: Pathway Tools (PTools) software with the Cellular Overview module [96].
• Input Data: A multi-omics data file. The file should be tab-delimited and contain columns for:
  • Gene, protein, reaction, or metabolite identifier (matching the identifiers in the PTools database).
  • One or more columns of numerical data (e.g., expression values, fold changes, abundance measurements) for the corresponding omics type.
• Pathway Database: An organism-specific metabolic pathway database for your species of interest, which can be created or loaded within Pathway Tools.

Methodology:

• Data Formatting: Prepare your omics datasets according to the PTools multi-omics file format. You can have up to four datasets, each assigned to a different "visual channel" [96].
• Load Diagram and Data: In the Cellular Overview, load the full metabolic network for your organism. Then, import your multi-omics data file(s). The tool will map your data onto the correct reactions and metabolites in the network.
• Configure Visualization: Assign each omics dataset to a visual channel:
  • Reaction edge color (e.g., for transcriptomics of enzyme-encoding genes)
  • Reaction edge thickness (e.g., for proteomics of enzymes)
  • Metabolite node color (e.g., for metabolomics data)
  • Metabolite node thickness (e.g., for another type of metabolomics or flux data)
• Interactive Exploration:
  • Use the semantic zoom function to zoom in on specific pathways of interest, which will reveal more detailed labels and information.
  • Adjust the color and thickness mappings to best represent your data range.
  • For time-series data, use the animation controls to observe dynamic changes over time.
  • Click on any reaction or metabolite to generate a pop-up graph showing the precise data values [96].

Visualized Workflows & Pathways

Workflow for a Translational Omics Validation Pipeline

Data Integration Strategies for Genomic Prediction

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Tool/Resource Name	Function & Application	Reference
TISCalling	A machine learning-based framework for de novo prediction of Translation Initiation Sites (TISs) from mRNA sequences in plants and viruses. Useful for discovering novel proteins and small peptides.	[99]
Pathway Tools (PTools) Cellular Overview	A platform for visualizing and analyzing up to four omics datasets simultaneously on organism-specific metabolic network diagrams. Enables metabolism-centric insight from multi-omics data.	[96]
CEDAR Workbench & Metadata Tools	A system for creating metadata templates, authoring standards-compliant metadata via spreadsheets, and validating/repairing metadata to ensure FAIRness.	[72]
Single-Cell RNA-Seq Platforms	Technologies (e.g., droplet-based, well-based) for profiling gene expression at single-cell resolution, enabling the construction of cell atlases and discovery of novel cell states in plant development and stress responses.	[97]
snATAC-Seq	Single-nucleus Assay for Transposase-Accessible Chromatin sequencing. Used to map cell-type-specific open chromatin regions and identify regulatory elements in plant tissues.	[97]

Conclusion

The standardization of plant omics data is not merely a technical exercise but a fundamental prerequisite for scientific discovery and clinical translation. By adopting the foundational principles, advanced methodologies, and robust troubleshooting strategies outlined in this article, the research community can overcome current challenges related to data interoperability and reproducibility. The future of plant omics lies in the continued development of collaborative, AI-driven frameworks, standardized benchmarking, and global data ecosystems. These efforts will ultimately unlock the full potential of plant omics, enabling breakthroughs in drug development, precision medicine, and our understanding of complex biological systems. The path forward requires a concerted, community-wide commitment to open science and standardized practices.

References

• 1. Missing data in multi-omics integration: Recent advances ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9949722/]
• 2. Perceptual and technical barriers in sharing and formatting ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666979X25001016]
• 3. Metadata harmonization–Standards are the key for a better ... [https://environmentalmicrobiome.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40793-022-00425-1]
• 4. Data Standards for Omics Data: The Basis of Data Sharing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4152841/]
• 5. Data Standardization: The Ultimate Guide to Why It Matters ... [https://improvado.io/blog/data-standardization-guide]
• 6. Data standardization: Why and how to standardize data [https://www.rudderstack.com/blog/data-standardization/]
• 7. Questions and Consequences of Omics in Genetically ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11832586/]
• 8. Addressing biomedical data challenges and opportunities ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-90453-x]
• 9. The systematic assessment of completeness of public ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03725-0]
• 10. Metadata Guidelines - NOAA Omics Data Management Guide [https://noaa-omics-dmg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/metadata-guidelines.html]
• 11. Metadata Services for Cancer Research - NCI [https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/organization/cbiit/vocabulary/metadata]
• 12. Apply common data elements [https://fairmetroline.org/metroline_steps/apply_common_data_elements]
• 13. Documentation & Metadata | Data Management [https://datamanagement.hms.harvard.edu/collect-analyze/documentation-metadata]
• 14. Metadata Basics [https://help.ceda.ac.uk/article/4428-metadata-basics]
• 15. Ten quick tips for avoiding pitfalls in multi-omics data ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011224]
• 16. Omics big data for crop improvement: Opportunities and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214514124002204]
• 17. empowering plant pathway exploration and OMICS data ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37986220/]
• 18. Effective omics tools are still lacking for improvement of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1295528/full]
• 19. Plant metabolomics: applications and challenges in the era of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11889285/]
• 20. Pairing omics to decode the diversity of plant specialized ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369526624001481]
• 21. Unlocking the Potential of Secondary Data for Public Health ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11480676/]
• 22. Beyond NGS data sharing for plant ecological resilience ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-024-03305-0]
• 23. Genomic Standards Consortium [https://genomicsstandardsconsortium.github.io/gensc.github.io//]
• 24. International Microbiome and Multi'omics Standards Alliance [https://www.microbialstandards.org/]
• 25. A standards perspective on genomic data reusability and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11931119/]
• 26. mixs [https://genomicsstandardsconsortium.github.io/mixs/]
• 27. Microbial measurements | NIST [https://www.nist.gov/microbial-measurements]
• 28. Troubleshooting Guide for Genomic DNA Extraction & ... [https://www.neb.com/en/tools-and-resources/troubleshooting-guides/troubleshooting-guide-for-t3010?srsltid=AfmBOopfE7m4MlaFF8ofx5ss64VUKplAg4ccwDyLsyGX-Q6wHU6UbHOQ]
• 29. RefSeq Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50679/]
• 30. BioLLM: A standardized framework for integrating and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12365531/]
• 31. Documentation - CZ CELLxGENE [https://cellxgene.cziscience.com/docs/01__CellxGene]
• 32. FAQ — cellxgene-census documentation [https://chanzuckerberg.github.io/cellxgene-census/cellxgene_census_docsite_FAQ.html]
• 33. CZ CELLxGENE Discover - Cellular Visualization Tool [https://cellxgene.cziscience.com/]
• 34. Transformative advances in single-cell omics - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12560279/]
• 35. Frequently Asked Questions [https://cellxgene.cziscience.com/docs/09__Frequently%20Asked%20Questions]
• 36. Transformative advances in single-cell omics: a comprehensive review... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-025-07091-0]
• 37. : A Lightweight Foundation Model... | Research Square scPlantFormer [https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-5219487/v1]
• 38. GitHub - bowang-lab/ scGPT [https://github.com/bowang-lab/scGPT]
• 39. Best practices for the execution, analysis, and data storage ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10980355/]
• 40. Guide to Getting Started with 10X Genomics Single Cell RNA ... [https://biotech.wisc.edu/guide-to-getting-started-with-10x-genomics-single-cell-rna-seq/]
• 41. Templates for best practice metadata annotation in plant ... [https://zenodo.org/records/16736144]
• 42. Best Practices for Analysis of 10x Genomics Single Cell ... [https://www.10xgenomics.com/analysis-guides/best-practices-analysis-10x-single-cell-rnaseq-data]
• 43. Demonstrator 8: Plant A+: Taking Plant Omics Data through ... [https://www.eosc-life.eu/d8/]
• 44. Systematic Multi-Omics Integration (MOI) Approach in Plant ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7371031/]
• 45. Prediction of plant complex traits via integration of multi- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50701-6]
• 46. Directions for research and training in plant omics: Big ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6589541/]
• 47. A Guide to Multi-omics Integration Strategies [https://frontlinegenomics.com/a-guide-to-multi-omics-integration-strategies/]
• 48. Spatial epigenome–transcriptome co-profiling of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05795-1]
• 49. How to Troubleshoot Sequencing Preparation Errors (NGS ... [https://www.cd-genomics.com/resource-sequencing-preparation-troubleshooting.html]
• 50. STANDARDIZE QC PROCEDURE FOR SCRNA-SEQ [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X24002244]
• 51. From data to discovery: leveraging big data in plant natural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12183336/]
• 52. Metadata harmonization–Standards are the key for a better ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9233336/]
• 53. Current best practices in single‐cell RNA‐seq analysis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6582955/]
• 54. Getting Started with scRNA-seq: Post-Sequencing Data ... [https://www.parsebiosciences.com/blog/getting-started-with-scrna-seq-post-sequencing-data-analysis/]
• 55. A comprehensive review of spatial transcriptomics data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12199153/]
• 56. Common mistakes when analyzing single-cell RNAseq data [https://divingintogeneticsandgenomics.com/post/common-mistakes-when-analyzing-single-cell-rnaseq-data/]
• 57. Challenges in Single-Cell RNA Seq Data Analysis & ... [https://www.elucidata.io/blog/challenges-and-solutions-in-single-cell-rna-seq-data-analysis]
• 58. An introduction to spatial transcriptomics for biomedical research [https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-022-01075-1]
• 59. Pseudoreplication in ecological research, and how to avoid it [https://matthiasrillig.substack.com/p/pseudoreplication-in-ecological-research]
• 60. Plant-pathogen interactions: making the case for multi-omics ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12569278/]
• 61. Breaking the reproducibility barrier with standardized ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12416739/]
• 62. Don't let spurious accusations of pseudoreplication limit ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6102510/]
• 63. Breaking the reproducibility barrier with standardized ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3003358]
• 64. Why You Must Correct Batch Effects in Transcriptomics Data? [https://www.metwarebio.com/transcriptomics-batch-effect-correction/]
• 65. Batch Effect in Single-cell RNA-seq: Frequently Asked ... [https://www.elucidata.io/blog/batch-effect-in-single-cell-rna-seq-frequently-asked-questions-and-answers]
• 66. 4 Handy Tips For Correcting Batch Effects | ScRNA-seq ... [https://www.pythiabio.com/post/4-handy-tips-for-correcting-batch-effects-scrna-seq-analysis-101]
• 67. Stop Wasting Time: Correcting Batch Effects in Multi-Omics ... [https://pluto.bio/resources/Learning%20Series/batch-effects-multi-omics-data-analysis]
• 68. Data Harmonization Meaning: 5 Steps to Flawless Harmony [https://lifebit.ai/blog/data-harmonization-meaning-complete-guide/]
• 69. Data Harmonization Use Case [https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/ehlc/use-cases/harmonization]
• 70. The Importance of Data Standardization and ... [https://www.agmatix.com/blog/importance-of-data-standardization-and-harmonization-in-agriculture/]
• 71. Thinking points for effective batch correction on biomedical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11471903/]
• 72. Ensuring Adherence to Standards in Experiment-Related ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-04589-6]
• 73. Plant Science Data Integration, from Building ... [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-13276-6_8]
• 74. Ten quick tips for avoiding pitfalls in multi-omics data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10325053/]
• 75. Chapter 2 — Designing a Multiomics Study [https://www.metabolon.com/multiomics-guide/designing-a-multiomics-study/]
• 76. Integrating Multi-Omics for Precision Medicine: 2025 Guide [https://lifebit.ai/blog/integrating-multi-modal-genomic-and-multi-omics-data-for-precision-medicine/]
• 77. Flexynesis: A deep learning toolkit for bulk multi-omics data ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63688-5]
• 78. Genomic data integration tutorial, a plant case study [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-023-09833-0]
• 79. Building a framework for reproducibility - PubMed - NIH [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41250647/]
• 80. The role of metadata in reproducible computational research [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389921001707]
• 81. Medical Research Metadata - Documenting Research Data [https://guides.library.jhu.edu/documenting_data/medical_research]
• 82. What Should a Clinical Metadata Repository Do? [https://www.certara.com/blog/what-should-a-clinical-metadata-repository-do/]
• 83. Benchmarking foundation cell models for post-perturbation ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-11600-2]
• 84. PerturBench: Benchmarking Machine Learning Models for ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2408.10609v4]
• 85. Single-cell omics in plant biology - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12214168/]
• 86. Exploring recent advances, limitations, and future ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44372-025-00337-7]
• 87. A Practical Guide to Inferring Multi-Omics Networks in Plant ... [https://www.broadinstitute.org/publications/broad1341031]
• 88. Genomic Insights into Plant-Microbe Interactions [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405985425001004]
• 89. A guide to multi-omics [https://frontlinegenomics.com/a-guide-to-multi-omics/]
• 90. Plant Reactome Knowledgebase: empowering plant pathway ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10767815/]
• 91. Multiomics | A holistic view of human health [https://www.illumina.com/techniques/multiomics.html]
• 92. Scalability and Validation of Big Data Bioinformatics Software [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S200103701730048X]
• 93. Scaling bioinformatics applications on HPC - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5751788/]
• 94. Scaling Data Pipelines for High-throughput Bioinformatics [https://www.elucidata.io/blog/scaling-data-pipelines-for-high-throughput-bioinformatics]
• 95. Genomic prediction powered by multi-omics data - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12485622/]
• 96. Visual analysis of multi-omics data [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioinformatics/articles/10.3389/fbinf.2024.1395981/full]
• 97. Exploring the untapped potential of single‐cell and spatial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12222937/]
• 98. STOC Plant - SpatioTemporal Omics Consortium_STOC [https://www.sto-consortium.org/stocplant2025.html]
• 99. TISCalling: leveraging machine learning to identify ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11103-025-01632-3]