Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2023 Nov 16;12:845. Originally published 2023 Jul 18. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.138571.2

The genome sequence of the critically endangered Kroombit tinkerfrog ( Taudactylus pleione)

Katherine A Farquharson 1,2, Elspeth A McLennan 2, Katherine Belov 1,2, Carolyn J Hogg 1,2,a
PMCID: PMC10474343  PMID: 37663197

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

In this revision, we add context for the discrepancy between the short-read estimation of genome size (3.1 Gb) and the assembled genome size (5.519 Gb). We hypothesise that the underestimation of genome size by short-read data was due to known limitations of short-read assemblies of repetitive regions of the genome. The Kroombit tinkerfrog genome was highly repetitive, with 63.35% of the total sequence annotated as repeat elements. We have also updated Figure 2 to be more easily readable. No other changes have been made.

Abstract

The Kroombit tinkerfrog ( Taudactylus pleione) is a stream-dwelling amphibian of the Myobatrachidae family. It is listed as Critically Endangered and is at high risk of extinction due to chytridiomycosis. Here, we provide the first genome assembly of the evolutionarily distinct Taudactylus genus. We sequenced PacBio HiFi reads to assemble a high-quality long-read genome and identified the mitochondrial genome. We also generated a global transcriptome from a tadpole to improve gene annotation. The genome was 5.52 Gb in length and consisted of 4,196 contigs with a contig N50 of 8.853 Mb and an L50 of 153. This study provides the first genomic resources for the Kroombit tinkerfrog to assist in future phylogenetic, environmental DNA, conservation breeding, and disease susceptibility studies.

Keywords: Anuran, genome assembly, transcriptome assembly, mitogenome, reference genome, Myobatrachidae

Introduction

The Kroombit tinkerfrog ( Taudactylus pleione) is a stream-dwelling Anuran of the Myobatrachidae family. It is endemic to Queensland, Australia, with a distribution restricted to fragmented patches above 400m altitude on an isolated plateau in the Kroombit Tops temperate rainforest ( Skerratt et al., 2016). The Kroombit tinkerfrog is listed as Critically Endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with less than 200 individuals estimated to remain in just a 19 km 2 area of occupancy ( IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, 2022) and is the highest ranked frog species requiring management action in Australia ( Gillespie et al., 2020). Threatening processes include infection by chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, habitat degradation due to agriculture, feral animals and plants, and fire ( Hines, 2014). The Kroombit tinkerfrog was identified as one of seven Australian amphibians at high risk of extinction due to chytridiomycosis ( Skerratt et al., 2016), and the fifth most likely frog to go extinct in an analysis of 26 Critically Endangered and Endangered Australian frogs ( Geyle et al., 2022). A captive breeding program was established at Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary in 2018, with the aim of releasing captive-bred tinkerfrogs back to the wild.

The Taudactylus genus is estimated to have diverged from other myobatrachids 65 million years ago, contributing to the high Evolutionary Distinctiveness and Global Endangerment (EDGE) score of 6.52 for the Kroombit tinkerfrog, which places it as the seventh highest EDGE amphibian ( Zoological Society of London, 2020). However, there are currently no published reference genomes available for the Taudactylus genus. The Kroombit tinkerfrog is primarily nocturnal and is secretive, making it difficult to find ( Clarke, 2006). Characterising the mitochondrial genome may therefore assist in efforts to develop environmental DNA (eDNA) approaches for monitoring the species in the wild using freshwater samples, as has been demonstrated in other endangered frog species ( Eiler et al., 2018; Villacorta-Rath et al., 2021). Therefore, in this study we sequenced DNA and RNA to assemble the genome, mitogenome, and transcriptomes and provide the first genomic resources for the Kroombit tinkerfrog.

Methods

Sample collection and DNA/RNA extraction

Due to the critically endangered status of the Kroombit tinkerfrog, we did not lethally sample an adult. Instead, three tadpoles of unknown sex from the captive breeding program at Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary were medically euthanised due to a failure to thrive, by immersion in 10 mL of 250 mg/L Tricaine MS222, buffered to pH 7 with sodium bicarbonate until cessation of a visibly detectable heartbeat, or in very small tadpoles, an absence of reflexes after prolonged immersion (University of Sydney Animal Research Authority 2021/1899). Tadpoles were then either flash frozen at -80°C or preserved in RNALater before being stored at -80°C. The tadpoles were skinned to avoid pigmentation issues that could impact sequencing. High molecular weight (HMW) DNA was extracted from the flash frozen tadpole tissue using the Nanobind Tissue Big DNA Kit v1.0 11/19 (Circulomics). A Qubit fluorometer was used to assess the concentration of DNA with the Qubit dsDNA BR assay kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific). RNA was extracted from the other two tadpoles preserved in RNALater, using the RNeasy Plus Mini Kit (Qiagen) with RNAse-free DNAse (Qiagen) digestion. Extractions were performed using tissue from the head, midsection, and tail of the tadpoles. Only tissues from one tadpole yielded acceptable quality RNA as determined by NanoDrop (Thermo Fisher Scientific), so were sequenced.

Library construction and sequencing

We first performed short-read sequencing to provide an estimate of genome size, which was previously unknown. HMW DNA underwent PCR-Free DNA Preparation and Illumina NovaSeq 150-bp paired end sequencing at the Australian Genome Research Facility, Melbourne, Australia. GenomeScope v1.0 ( Vurture et al., 2017) estimated the haploid genome size at 3.1 Gb. As a result, HMW DNA was sent for PacBio HiFi library preparation with Pippin Prep and sequencing on three single molecule real-time (SMRT) cells of the PacBio Sequel II (Australian Genome Research Facility, Brisbane, Australia). Additional HMW DNA from the same tadpole was later sent for sequencing on a fourth SMRT cell after the initial assembly resulted in low coverage due to a larger than expected genome (see Results).

Total RNA from the head, midsection, and tail of one tadpole was sequenced as 100 bp paired-end reads using Illumina NovaSeq 6000 with Illumina Stranded mRNA library preparation at the Ramaciotti Centre for Genomics (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia).

Genome assembly

Genome assembly was conducted on an Amazon Web Services r5.24x large cloud machine (96 vCPU; 1 TB RAM). The raw circular consensus sequence reads were filtered to retain HiFi reads (≥Q20) with BamTools v2.5.1 ( Barnett et al., 2011). SamTools v1.15 ( Danecek et al., 2021) bam2fq converted the BAM files to FASTQ format for input to Hifiasm v0.16.1-r375 ( Cheng et al., 2021, 2022). The Hifiasm assembly included the following modified parameters: -f38 (recommended for genomes larger than the human genome), -a 6 (to increase number of assembly graph cleaning rounds from the default of 4), and -s 0.65 (to reduce the similarity threshold for duplicate haplotigs to be purged).

Basic genome assembly statistics were calculated using the ‘stats.sh’ script from BBMap v38.86 ( Bushnell, 2022). Completeness was assessed using Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologues (BUSCO) v5.2.2 ( Simão et al., 2015) with the vertebrata_odb10 lineage (n=3,354 BUSCOs) run on Galaxy Australia ( The Galaxy Community, 2022). The repetitive elements of the genome were identified and classified by building a custom database using RepeatModeler v2.0.1 ( Flynn et al., 2020) and RepeatMasker v4.0.9 ( Smit et al., 2013-2015) with the -nolow parameter to avoid masking of simple low-complexity repeats.

Mitogenome assembly

The mitochondrial genome was assembled from the genome assembly using MitoHiFi v2 ( Allio et al., 2020; Uliano-Silva et al., 2023). MitoHiFi first identifies the most closely related publicly available mitochondrial genome for a similarity-based approach, in this case the Wokan cannibal frog Lechriodus melanopyga (NCBI reference sequence NC_019999.1; ( Irisarri et al., 2012)). The mitochondrial genome was visualised with MitoZ v2.3 ( Meng et al., 2019).

Transcriptome assembly

Transcriptome assembly was conducted on the University of Sydney High Performance Computer, Artemis. The raw transcriptome reads were quality assessed both prior to and after quality trimming with FastQC v0.11.8 ( Andrews, 2010). Trimmomatic v0.39 ( Bolger et al., 2014) was used to quality trim reads specifying TruSeq3-PE adapters, SLIDINGWINDOW:4:5, LEADING:5, TRAILING:5 and MINLEN:25. The repeat-masked genome was indexed and reads aligned with HiSat2 v2.1.0 ( Kim et al., 2019). Resulting SAM files were converted to a coordinate-sorted BAM format with SamTools v1.9 view and sort. StringTie v2.1.6 ( Pertea et al., 2015) generated a GTF for each transcriptome. The aligned RNAseq reads were then merged into transcripts and filtered to remove transcripts found in only one tissue with FPKM < 0.1, using TAMA-merge v2020/12/17 ( Kuo et al., 2020) and CPC2 v2019-11-19 ( Kang et al., 2017). TransDecoder v2.0.1 ( Haas, 2022) was used to predict open reading frames in the resulting global transcriptome. The completeness of the global transcriptome was assessed using BUSCO v5.2.2 in ‘transcriptome’ mode with the vertebrata_odb10 lineage.

Genome annotation

Genome annotation was performed using FGENESH++ v7.2.2 (Softberry; ( Solovyev et al., 2006)) on a Pawsey Supercomputing Centre Nimbus cloud machine (256 GB RAM, 64 vCPU, 3 TB storage) using the longest open reading frame predicted from the global transcriptome, non-mammalian settings, and optimised parameters supplied with the Xenopus (generic) gene-finding matrix. BUSCO v5.2.2 in ‘protein’ mode was used to assess the completeness of the annotation with the vertebrata_odb10 lineage. The ‘genestats’ script ( GitHub) was used to obtain the average number of exons and introns, and average exon and intron length.

Results

Genome size and assembly

Initial genome size prediction from the short-read sequencing data predicted a total haploid length of 3.1 Gb ( Figure 1). The initial genome assembly using PacBio HiFi data from three SMRT cells yielded a genome of 5.59 Gb in length, comprising 9,966 contigs with a contig N50 of 2.401 Mb. We hypothesise that the short-read data underestimated genome size due to the highly repetitive nature of large amphibian genomes ( Kosch et al., 2023) and the known limitations of short reads that are too short to span long repeats or may collapse repeats in the assembly ( Wang et al., 2021). Coverage of the initial genome assembly was low (14×) due to the underestimation of the genome size, so re-assembly with the addition of a fourth SMRT cell yielded a genome of 5.519 Gb, comprising 4,196 contigs and with an improved contig N50 of 8.853 Mb, and a coverage of 21× ( Table 1). The mitochondrial genome was 22,974 bp long and consisted of 38 genes, including 13 protein-coding genes, 2 rRNAs, and 23 tRNAs, with a GC content of 41.89% ( Figure 2).

Figure 1. GenomeScope profile based on the Illumina short-read sequencing data.

Figure 1.

The total length of the genome sequence was estimated at 3.119 Gb.

Table 1. Genome assembly statistics of the Kroombit tinkerfrog ( Taudactylus pleione).

Metric
Assembly size (Gb) 5.519
Number of contigs 4,196
Contig N50 (Mb) 8.853
Contig L50 153
Contig N90 (Mb) 12.693
Contig L90 96
Longest contig (Mb) 82.089
GC content (%) 43.63
Complete BUSCOs 85.0% [Single copy: 83.2%; Duplicated: 1.8%]
Fragmented BUSCOs 5.8%
Missing BUSCOs 9.2%

Figure 2. Mitochondrial genome of the Kroombit tinkerfrog ( Taudactylus pleione).

Figure 2.

Transcriptome assembly and genome annotation

Over 99.98% of raw reads were retained after quality trimming. The individual tissue transcriptomes had high mapping rates to the repeat-masked genome (82.8% head; 91.3% mid-section; 84.9% tail). The global transcriptome had 93.8% complete BUSCOs [Single copy: 31.4%; Duplicated: 62.4%]; 3.1% fragmented BUSCOs and 3.1% missing BUSCOs. A total of 14,448 predicted genes were used as evidence for genome annotation. Repetitive elements comprised 63.35% of the total genomic sequence, with 37.53% unclassified repeats ( Table 2). A total of 70,371 genes were predicted from the annotation. This is likely to be an overestimate of the true number of protein-coding genes, expected to be within the range of 20,000 to 30,000 ( Sun et al., 2020), possibly due to a lack of homology-based evidence for amphibians. There was an average of 4.9 exons (SE=0.03) and 3.9 introns (SE=0.03) per putative gene, with an average exon length of 340 bp (SE=16) and an average intron length of 7,187 bp (SE=220). The annotation had 84.1% complete BUSCOs [Single copy: 81.7%; Duplicated: 2.4%]; 9.1% fragmented BUSCOs and 6.8% missing BUSCOs.

Table 2. Classification of repeat elements of the Kroombit tinkerfrog ( Taudactylus pleione) genome assembly.

Repeat element Number of elements % of sequence
SINEs 79,920 0.18
LINES 479,252 4.81
LINE1 139,946 1.23
LINE2 165,908 1.24
L3/CR1 14,534 0.12
LTR elements 512,481 8.21
ERVL 1,724 0.02
ERV Class I 61,019 1.62
ERV Class II 9,734 0.05
DNA elements 1,505,343 12.24
hAT-Charlie 155,702 0.49
TcMar-Tigger 27,592 0.19
Unclassified 8,132,793 37.53
Total interspersed repeats 62.96
Small RNA 92,945 0.51
Satellites 19,524 0.11

In summary, we have generated a high-quality long-read draft annotated reference genome, mitogenome, and global transcriptome for the critically endangered Kroombit tinkerfrog, providing the first genome for the Taudactylus genus.

Ethical considerations

Tadpoles were sampled under the University of Sydney’s Animal Research Authority (Ethics) 2021/1899. Samples were held at the laboratory under NSW Scientific Licence SL101204.

Acknowledgements

We pay our respects to the Bailai, Gooreng Gooreng, and Gurang Aboriginal elders, past and present. We thank Michael Vella and Andrew Hill from Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary for obtaining and providing tadpole samples. Computational resources were provided by Amazon Web Services and RONIN; the Australian FGENESH++ Service provided by the Australian BioCommons and the Pawsey Supercomputing Research Centre with funding from the Australian Government and the Government of Western Australia; Galaxy Australia, a service provided by the Australian Biocommons and its partners; and the University of Sydney’s High Performance Computing facility Artemis provided by the Sydney Informatics Hub. The authors wish to acknowledge the use of the services and facilities of the Ramaciotti Centre for Genomics, UNSW and of the Australian Genome Research Facility.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Innovations in Peptide and Protein Science (CE200100012); the NCRIS supported Bioplatforms Australia Threatened Species Initiative; the Australian Federal Government Bushfire Recovery Scheme (ERF-WRR2-020).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

[version 2; peer review: 3 approved]

Data availability

The raw short-read, PacBio HiFi, and transcriptome data is publicly available through the Bioplatforms Australia Threatened Species Initiative: https://data.bioplatforms.com/organization/threatened-species . The assembled genome, global transcriptome and annotation generated in this study are available on Amazon Web Services Australasian Genomes Open Data Store: https://awgg-lab.github.io/australasiangenomes/genomes.html.

Raw genome and transcriptome sequences are also available from NCBI’s Short Read Archive (SRA) accession numbers SRR24905730 to SRR24905734:

And the assembled genome from NCBI’s Assembly database, BioProject:

References

  1. Allio R, Schomaker-Bastos A, Romiguier J, et al. : MitoFinder: Efficient automated large-scale extraction of mitogenomic data in target enrichment phylogenomics. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2020;20(4):892–905. 10.1111/1755-0998.13160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrews S: FastQC: A quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. 2010. Reference Source
  3. Barnett DW, Garrison EK, Quinlan AR, et al. : BamTools: a C++ API and toolkit for analyzing and managing BAM files. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(12):1691–1692. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B: Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(15):2114–2120. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bushnell B: BBMap. 2022. Retrieved February 2022. Reference Source
  6. Cheng H, Concepcion GT, Feng X, et al. : Haplotype-resolved de novo assembly using phased assembly graphs with hifiasm. Nat. Methods. 2021;18(2):170–175. 10.1038/s41592-020-01056-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cheng H, Jarvis ED, Fedrigo O, et al. : Haplotype-resolved assembly of diploid genomes without parental data. Nat. Biotechnol. 2022;40(9):1332–1335. 10.1038/s41587-022-01261-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Clarke JM: Habitat, microhabitat and calling behaviour of Taudactylus pleione Czhechura (Anura: Myobatrachidae), a critically endangered frog from central Queensland, Australia [Master of Applied Science (Research) Thesis, Central Queensland University]. 2006.
  9. Danecek P, Bonfield JK, Liddle J, et al. : Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. GigaScience. 2021;10(2). 10.1093/gigascience/giab008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Eiler A, Löfgren A, Hjerne O, et al. : Environmental DNA (eDNA) detects the pool frog ( Pelophylax lessonae) at times when traditional monitoring methods are insensitive. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:5452. 10.1038/s41598-018-23740-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Farquharson, et al. : RNA-seq of Taudactylus pleione tadpole.[Dataset]. Sequence Read Archive. 2023a. Reference Source
  12. Farquharson, et al. : Taudactylus pleione (Kroombit tinker frog).[Dataset]. BioProject. 2023b. Reference Source
  13. Flynn JM, Hubley R, Goubert C, et al. : RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families. PNAS. 2020;117(17):9451–9457. 10.1073/pnas.1921046117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Geyle HM, Hoskin CJ, Bower DS, et al. : Red hot frogs: identifying the Australian frogs most at risk of extinction. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 2022;28:211–223. 10.1071/PC21019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gillespie GR, Roberts JD, Hunter D, et al. : Status and priority conservation actions for Australian frog species. Biol. Conserv. 2020;247(108543):108543. 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108543 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Haas BJ: TransDecoder (find coding regions within transcripts). 2022. Retrieved February 2022. Reference Source
  17. Hines HB: Kroombit Tops: endemism and outliers. Queensland Nat. 2014;52:4–31. [Google Scholar]
  18. Irisarri I, Mauro DS, Abascal F, et al. : The origin of modern frogs (Neobatrachia) was accompanied by acceleration in mitochondrial and nuclear substitution rates. BMC Genomics. 2012;13(1):626. 10.1186/1471-2164-13-626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group: Taudactylus pleione. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2022:e.T21533A78446285. 2022. Retrieved 31st March. 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2022-2.RLTS.T21533A78446285.en [DOI]
  20. Kang Y-J, Yang D-C, Kong L, et al. : CPC2: a fast and accurate coding potential calculator based on sequence intrinsic features. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45(W1):W12–W16. 10.1093/nar/gkx428 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim D, Paggi JM, Park C, et al. : Graph-based genome alignment and genotyping with HISAT2 and HISAT-genotype. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019;37(8):907–915. 10.1038/s41587-019-0201-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kosch TA, Crawford AJ, Mueller RL, et al. : Comparative analysis of amphibian genomes: an emerging resource for basic and applied research. bioRxiv. 2023. 10.1101/2023.02.07.530355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuo RI, Cheng Y, Zhang R, et al. : Illuminating the dark side of the human transcriptome with long read transcript sequencing. BMC Genomics. 2020;21(1):751. 10.1186/s12864-020-07123-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Meng G, Li Y, Yang C, et al. : MitoZ: a toolkit for animal mitochondrial genome assembly, annotation and visualization. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(11):e63–e63. 10.1093/nar/gkz173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pertea M, Pertea GM, Antonescu CM, et al. : StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015;33(3):290–295. 10.1038/nbt.3122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Simão FA, Waterhouse RM, Ioannidis P, et al. : BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(19):3210–3212. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Skerratt LF, Berger L, Clemman N, et al. : Priorities for management of chytridiomycosis in Australia: saving frogs from extinction. Wildl. Res. 2016;43:105–120. 10.1071/WR15071 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Smit AFA, Hubley R, Green P: RepeatMasker Open-4.0. 2013-2015. Retrieved February 2022. Reference Source
  29. Solovyev V, Kosarev P, Seledsov I, et al. : Automatic annotation of eukaryotic genes, pseudogenes and promoters. Genome Biol. 2006;7 Suppl 1(1):S10.1–S1012. 10.1186/gb-2006-7-s1-s10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sun YB, Zhang Y, Wang K: Perspectives on studying molecular adaptations of amphibians in the genomic era. Zool. Res. 2020;41(4):351–364. 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. The Galaxy Community: The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2022 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022;50(W1):W345–W351. 10.1093/nar/gkac247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Uliano-Silva M, Ferreira JGRN, Krasheninnikova K, et al. : MitoHiFi: a python pipeline for mitochondrial genome assembly from PacBio high fidelity reads. BMC Bioinform. 2023;24:288. 10.1186/s12859-023-05385-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Villacorta-Rath C, Hoskin CJ, Strugnell JM, et al. : Long distance (>20km) downstream detection of endangered stream frogs suggests an important role for eDNA in surveying for remnant amphibian populations. PeerJ. 2021;9:e12013. 10.7717/peerj.12013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Vurture GW, Sedlazeck FJ, Nattestad M, et al. : GenomeScope: fast reference-free genome profiling from short reads. Bioinformatics. 2017;33(14):2202–2204. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang P, Meng F, Moore BM, et al. : Impact of short-read sequencing on the misassembly of a plant genome. BMC Genom. 2021;22:99. 10.1186/s12864-021-07397-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Zoological Society of London: The 2020 EDGE List. 2020. Retrieved 31st March. Reference Source
F1000Res. 2024 Feb 22. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.155707.r245725

Reviewer response for version 2

Matheus Azambuja 1

The manuscript “The genome sequence of the critically endangered Kroombit tinkerfrog ( Taudactylus pleione)” presents the first genome assembly and annotation, and the mitogenome of an endangered frog from Australia. The methods used are appropriate and detailed in the manuscript.

The manuscript is an important contribution to the kroombit tinkerfrog conservation. Future transposable element and satellitome characterizations will improve genome annotation, since repetitive DNA accounts for a large fraction of amphibian genomes.

Regarding the mitogenome, I suggest the authors to calculate the AT/GC-skews for the genes, to improve the mitogenome characterization. Additionally, in figure 2, some tRNA gene names are incomplete, the intended amino acid information is missing.

Are the datasets clearly presented in a usable and accessible format, and the assembly and annotation available in an appropriate subject-specific repository?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the sequencing and extraction, software used, and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the rationale for sequencing the genome and the species significance clearly described?

Yes

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Evolutionary biology; Cytogenomics; Fish genomics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2023 Sep 1. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.151776.r190414

Reviewer response for version 1

Sandra Goutte 1

The article "The genome sequence of the critically endangered Kroombit tinkerfrog ( Taudactylus pleione)" presents the first genome, mitogenome and transcriptome assemblies for the Kroombit tinkerfrog, a Critically Endangered species from Australia. The authors clearly explain how valuable this dataset is for the species' conservation and potential future evolutionary biology studies. 

The methods used are appropriate and sufficiently detailed in the text. It would be great to have a more polished annotation, but the authors do mention that their number of predicted genes is likely an over estimation.

Overall, I believe that this article is an important contribution to amphibian genomics and I'm looking forward to seeing how the authors use this dataset in their future research.

Are the datasets clearly presented in a usable and accessible format, and the assembly and annotation available in an appropriate subject-specific repository?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the sequencing and extraction, software used, and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the rationale for sequencing the genome and the species significance clearly described?

Yes

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Evolutionary biology, Amphibian genomics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2023 Sep 6.
Katherine Farquharson 1

We thank the reviewer for their kind comments. We agree that a more polished annotation would assist in future research activities, though it was beyond the current scope of our current study. We have submitted the genome to NCBI’s GenBank and transcriptomes to the SRA so expect the Eukaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline will provide a better genome annotation once released. In the meantime, we have made the global transcriptome that we used in genome annotation publicly available alongside the genome to allow for other annotations.

F1000Res. 2023 Aug 9. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.151776.r190413

Reviewer response for version 1

Natalie Forsdick 1

The manuscript 'The genome sequence of the critically endangered Kroombit tinkerfrog ( Taudactylus pleione)' presents a brief description of the genome assembly and annotation, and mitogenome assembly for a frog of high conservation value. The methods used are clearly described and appropriate, and produced good results in terms of genome contiguity and annotation completeness. I look forward to seeing these resources used to support conservation in the future, including through non-invasive monitoring using eDNA methods. 

My only query is whether any attempt at flow cytometry had been considered to assess genome size? Is the discrepancy between the GenomeScope estimate based on short read data and the final assembly size purely the result of a high proportion of repetitive elements? 

I recommend that Figure 2 be replaced with a higher resolution version, as it is currently quite grainy, making it difficult to read the smaller text.

Are the datasets clearly presented in a usable and accessible format, and the assembly and annotation available in an appropriate subject-specific repository?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the sequencing and extraction, software used, and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the rationale for sequencing the genome and the species significance clearly described?

Yes

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Eukaryote genome assembly; Conservation genetics; Conservation genomics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2023 Sep 6.
Katherine Farquharson 1

Thank you for your constructive review of our genome note. We did not attempt flow cytometry to estimate the genome size. Flow cytometry requires optimisation of the tissue source for each organism. We did not have access to flow cytometry equipment or expertise within our laboratory but do agree that it is a useful technique and will consider applying it in future genome sequencing projects, thank you for the suggestion. A recent preprint (Douglas et al.) estimated genome sizes from four amphibian species and provides a useful guide to flow cytometry considerations:

Douglas, TE, Márquez, R, Holmes, VR, Johnston, JS, Tarvin, RD. Genome size evolution and phenotypic correlates in the poison frog family Dendrobatidae. bioRxiv. DOI: 10.1101/2023.06.30.547273.

We believe that the discrepancy in our genome size estimation between the short-read GenomeScope estimate and the long-read genome assembly was due to the high proportion of repetitive elements (estimated to comprise 62.25% of the genome sequence). Short-read data assemblies may collapse repetitive regions and long repeats longer than the read length lead to gaps in the assembly. We have now added our interpretation to the Results.

We have replaced Figure 2 with a higher resolution version and made the text easier to read.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Citations

    1. Farquharson, et al. : RNA-seq of Taudactylus pleione tadpole.[Dataset]. Sequence Read Archive. 2023a. Reference Source
    2. Farquharson, et al. : Taudactylus pleione (Kroombit tinker frog).[Dataset]. BioProject. 2023b. Reference Source

    Data Availability Statement

    The raw short-read, PacBio HiFi, and transcriptome data is publicly available through the Bioplatforms Australia Threatened Species Initiative: https://data.bioplatforms.com/organization/threatened-species . The assembled genome, global transcriptome and annotation generated in this study are available on Amazon Web Services Australasian Genomes Open Data Store: https://awgg-lab.github.io/australasiangenomes/genomes.html.

    Raw genome and transcriptome sequences are also available from NCBI’s Short Read Archive (SRA) accession numbers SRR24905730 to SRR24905734:

    And the assembled genome from NCBI’s Assembly database, BioProject:


    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES