Skip to main content
Wellcome Open Research logoLink to Wellcome Open Research
. 2025 Feb 21;7:81. Originally published 2022 Mar 8. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17709.2

The genome sequence of the Black-veined White butterfly, Aporia crataegi (Linnaeus, 1758)

Sam Ebdon 1, Alexander Mackintosh 1, Konrad Lohse 1, Alex Hayward 2, Saad Arif 3, Rebecca Whitla 3; Darwin Tree of Life Barcoding collective; Wellcome Sanger Institute Tree of Life programme; Wellcome Sanger Institute Scientific Operations: DNA Pipelines collective; Tree of Life Core Informatics collective; Darwin Tree of Life Consortiuma
PMCID: PMC11872023  PMID: 40027397

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

The sex of the sequences specimen is male, and this has been corrected in the methods section. We have added more information about the assembly method and about the quantities of sequence data generated.

Abstract

We present a genome assembly from an individual male Aporia crataegi (the black-veined white; Arthropoda; Insecta; Lepidoptera; Pieridae). The genome sequence is 230 megabases in span. The complete assembly is scaffolded into 26 chromosomal pseudomolecules, with the Z sex chromosome assembled. Gene annotation of this assembly on Ensembl has identified 10,860 protein coding genes.

Keywords: Aporia crataegi, black-veined white, genome sequence, chromosomal, Lepidoptera

Species taxonomy

Eukaryota; Metazoa; Ecdysozoa; Arthropoda; Hexapoda; Insecta; Pterygota; Neoptera; Endopterygota; Lepidoptera; Glossata; Ditrysia; Papilionoidea; Pieridae; Pierinae; Aporia; Aporia crataegi (Linnaeus, 1758) (NCBI:txid111923).

Background

The black-veined white ( Aporia crataegi) is a large butterfly with distinctive venation on its wings. This species is oligophagous with a larval host plant preference for Prunus and Crataegus spp. and is often considered a pest species in orchards ( Jugovic et al., 2017; Manley, 2008). It is found in a wide variety of habitats including dry grassland, woodland edges, and shrubland ( Tolman & Lewington, 2008). Aporia crataegi is found across the Palaearctic, with populations present in north-west Africa, as well as across Europe and Asia.

The butterfly disappeared from Britain and Ireland around 1925, and the last British specimens were collected from Herne Bay in Kent during the 1920s ( Todisco et al., 2020). It is not understood why the species disappeared from Britain and Ireland; however, climate variability along with other concurrent detrimental conditions, such as parasites, disease, or predation have been suggested as potential reasons ( Pratt, 1983). Several reintroductions have been attempted, but all have been unsuccessful ( Asher et al., 2001), including one purportedly by Winston Churchill after the end of World War II. Given the butterfly's wide Palaearctic distribution, it remains listed as a species of least concern, but more recently it has been reported as extinct in the Czech Republic, the Netherlands ( Van Swaay et al., 2010), and likely South Korea ( Kim et al., 2015). Additionally, abundance and/or range is declining in Austria, Luxembourg, Romania, Ukraine, Albania, France, Latvia, Norway and Serbia ( Van Swaay et al., 2010). No clear consensus exists on the reasons for these declines. We expect that the assembly reported here will facilitate conservation genomic approaches, shedding light on this species' current status ( Todisco et al., 2020). In particular, it will be a valuable resource for any future reintroductions, monitoring, and other local conservation efforts.

Genome sequence report

The genome was sequenced from a single male A. crataegi ( Figure 1) collected from Planoles Station, Catalunya, Spain (latitude 42.3136, longitude 2.0996). The genome was sequenced using Pacific Biosciences single-molecule circular consensus (HiFi) long reads, generating a total of 24.82 Gb (gigabases) from 2.30 million reads, providing an estimated 101-fold coverage. 10X Genomics read clouds were generated for polishing the genome, at approximately 147-fold coverage (72.47 gigabases from 480.1 million reads). Primary assembly contigs were scaffolded with chromosome conformation Hi-C data, which produced 111.79 Gb from 740.32 million reads.

Figure 1. Fore and hind wings of the Aporia crataegi specimens used for sequencing.

Figure 1.

Dorsal ( A) and ventral ( B) surface view of wings from specimen PS_AC_246 (ilApoCrat1) from Planoles, Spain, used to generate Pacific Biosciences and 10X genomics data. Dorsal ( C) and ventral ( D) surface view of wings from specimen NU_AC_677 (ilApoCrat2) from Nueno, Spain, used to generate RNA-Seq data.

RNA data was also produced from a different sample, ilApoCrat2, to be used for annotation of the genome: 6.1 Gb were produced from 40.39 million reads.

Manual assembly curation corrected 4 missing/misjoins and removed 5 haplotypic duplications, reducing the assembly length by 0.37% and the scaffold number by 7.14%. The final assembly has a total length of 230 Mb in 26 sequence scaffolds with a scaffold N50 of 25.5 Mb ( Table 1). The complete assembly sequence was assigned to 26 chromosomal-level scaffolds, representing 25 autosomes (numbered by sequence length), and the Z sex chromosome ( Figure 2Figure 5; Table 2). The assembly has a BUSCO v5.1.2 ( Manni et al., 2021) completeness of 98.5% (single 97.8%, duplicated 0.6%) using the lepidoptera_odb10 reference set ( n=5,286). While not fully phased, the assembly deposited is of one haplotype. Contigs corresponding to the second haplotype have also been deposited.

Figure 2. Genome assembly of Aporia crataegi, ilApoCrat1.1: metrics.

Figure 2.

The BlobToolKit Snailplot shows N50 metrics and BUSCO gene completeness. The main plot is divided into 1,000 size-ordered bins around the circumference with each bin representing 0.1% of the 229,694,036 bp assembly. The distribution of chromosome lengths is shown in dark grey with the plot radius scaled to the longest chromosome present in the assembly (12,847,094 bp, shown in red). Orange and pale-orange arcs show the N50 and N90 chromosome lengths (9,626,953 and 8,364,946 bp), respectively. The pale grey spiral shows the cumulative chromosome count on a log scale with white scale lines showing successive orders of magnitude. The blue and pale-blue area around the outside of the plot shows the distribution of GC, AT and N percentages in the same bins as the inner plot. A summary of complete, fragmented, duplicated and missing BUSCO genes in the lepidoptera_odb10 set is shown in the top right. An interactive version of this figure is available at https://blobtoolkit.genomehubs.org/view/ilApoCrat1.1/dataset/ilApoCrat1_1/snail.

Figure 5. Genome assembly of Aporia crataegi, ilApoCrat1.1: Hi-C contact map.

Figure 5.

Hi-C contact map of the ilApoCrat1.1 assembly, visualised in HiGlass. Chromosomes are shown in size order from left to right and top to bottom.

Table 1. Genome data for Aporia crataegi, ilApoCrat1.1.

Project accession data
Assembly identifier ilApoCrat1.1
Species Aporia crataegi
Specimen ilApoCrat1 (genome assembly); ilApoCrat2 (RNA-Seq)
NCBI taxonomy ID NCBI:txid129397
BioProject PRJEB45674
BioSample ID SAMEA7523355
Isolate information Male, whole organism (ilApoCrat1); male, thorax (ilApoCrat2)
Raw data accessions
PacificBiosciences SEQUEL II ERR6544652 (2.3 million reads, 24.82 gigabases)
10X Genomics Illumina ERR6363316-ERR6363319 (480 million reads, 72.47 gigabases)
Hi-C Illumina ERR6363321 (740.32 million reads, 111.79 gigabases)
Illumina polyA RNA-Seq ERR6363320 (40.39 million reads, 6.1 gigabases)
Genome assembly
Assembly accession GCA_912999735.1
Accession of alternate haplotype GCA_912999795.1
Span (Mb) 230
Number of contigs 28
Contig N50 length (Mb) 9.6
Number of scaffolds 26
Scaffold N50 length (Mb) 9.6
Longest scaffold (Mb) 12.8
BUSCO * genome score C:98.5%[S:97.8%,D:0.6%],F:0.3%,M:1.2%,n:5286
Genome annotation
Number of protein-coding genes 10,860
Average length of coding sequence (bp) 1597.20
Average number of exons per transcript 8.23
Average exon size (bp) 259.64
Average intron size (bp) 1337.70

*BUSCO scores based on the lepidoptera_odb10 BUSCO set using v5.1.2. C= complete [S= single copy, D=duplicated], F=fragmented, M=missing, n=number of orthologues in comparison. A full set of BUSCO scores is available at https://blobtoolkit.genomehubs.org/view/ilApoCrat1.1/dataset/ilApoCrat1_1/busco.

Figure 3. Genome assembly of Aporia crataegi, ilApoCrat1.1.

Figure 3.

BlobToolKit GC-coverage plot showing sequence coverage (vertical axis) and GC content (horizontal axis). The circles represent scaffolds, with the size proportional to scaffold length and the colour representing phylum membership. The histograms along the axes display the total length of sequences distributed across different levels of coverage and GC content. An interactive version of this figure is available at https://blobtoolkit.genomehubs.org/view/ilApoCrat1.1/dataset/ilApoCrat1_1/blob.

Figure 4. Genome assembly of Aporia crataegi, ilApoCrat1.1: cumulative sequence.

Figure 4.

BlobToolKit cumulative sequence plot. The grey line shows cumulative length for all scaffolds. Coloured lines show cumulative lengths of scaffolds assigned to each phylum using the buscogenes taxrule. An interactive version of this figure is available at https://blobtoolkit.genomehubs.org/view/ilApoCrat1.1/dataset/ilApoCrat1_1/cumulative.

Table 2. Chromosomal pseudomolecules in the genome assembly of Aporia crataegi, ilApoCrat1.1.

INSDC accession Chromosome Size (Mb) GC%
OU538729.1 1 12.85 32.4
OU538730.1 2 11.89 32.4
OU538731.1 3 11.06 31.9
OU538733.1 4 10.56 32.3
OU538734.1 5 10.37 32.0
OU538735.1 6 10.35 32.1
OU538736.1 7 9.98 32.5
OU538737.1 8 9.76 32.4
OU538738.1 9 9.64 32.2
OU538739.1 10 9.63 32.5
OU538740.1 11 9.51 32.1
OU538741.1 12 9.47 32.2
OU538742.1 13 9.42 32.1
OU538743.1 14 9.39 32.6
OU538744.1 15 9.37 32.4
OU538745.1 16 8.83 32.5
OU538746.1 17 8.79 32.4
OU538747.1 18 8.74 32.1
OU538748.1 19 8.73 32.5
OU538749.1 20 8.36 32.3
OU538750.1 21 6.60 33.2
OU538751.1 22 4.59 33.4
OU538752.1 23 4.58 34.1
OU538753.1 24 3.40 33.5
OU538754.1 25 3.03 33.8
OU538732.1 Z 10.79 32.1
OU538755.1 MT 0.02 18.7

Genome annotation report

The ilApoCrat1.1 genome has been annotated using the Ensembl rapid annotation pipeline ( Table 1; https://rapid.ensembl.org/Aporia_crataegi_GCA_912999735.1/). The resulting annotation includes 17,867 transcribed mRNAs from 10,860 protein-coding and 1,089 non-coding genes. There are 1.54 coding transcripts per gene and 8.23 exons per transcript. The average transcript length is 11,205.05 bp.

Methods

Sample acquisition and nucleic acid extraction

A male A. crataegi specimen (ilApoCrat1, genome assembly) was collected from Planoles Station, Catalunya, Spain (latitude 42.3136, longitude 2.0996) using a net by Konrad Lohse and Alex Hayward. A second male A. crataegi specimen (ilApoCrat2, RNA-Seq) was collected by Sam Ebdon and Alexander Mackintosh from Nueno, Aragon, Spain (latitude 42.27, longitude –0.45), using a net. Both specimens were formally identified by Konrad Lohse. The samples were snap-frozen at –80°C. Permissions for field sampling were obtained from the Gobierno de Aragon (INAGA/500201/24/2018/0614 to Karl Wotton) and the Generalitat de Catalunya (SF/639).

DNA was extracted from the whole organism of ilApoCrat1 at the Wellcome Sanger Institute (WSI) Scientific Operations core from the whole organism using the Qiagen MagAttract HMW DNA kit, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. RNA (from the thorax of ilApoCrat2) was extracted in the Tree of Life Laboratory at the WSI using TRIzol, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. RNA was then eluted in 50 μl RNAse-free water and its concentration RNA assessed using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer and Qubit Fluorometer using the Qubit RNA Broad-Range (BR) Assay kit. Analysis of the integrity of the RNA was done using Agilent RNA 6000 Pico Kit and Eukaryotic Total RNA assay.

Sequencing

Pacific Biosciences HiFi circular consensus and 10X Genomics read cloud DNA sequencing libraries were constructed according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Poly(A) RNA-Seq libraries were constructed using the NEB Ultra II RNA Library Prep kit. DNA and RNA sequencing was performed by the Scientific Operations core at the WSI on Pacific Biosciences SEQUEL II (HiFi), Illumina HiSeq X (10X) and Illumina HiSeq 4000 (RNA-Seq) instruments. Hi-C data were also generated from remaining whole organism tissue of ilApoCrat1 using the Arima v2 Hi-C kit and sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 instrument.

Genome assembly

The Hi-Fi reads were assembled using Hifiasm with the --primary option ( Cheng et al., 2021). Haplotypic duplication was identified and removed with purge_dups ( Guan et al., 2020). One round of polishing of the purged assembly was performed by mapping 10X Genomics read data to the full assembly with LongRanger align, calling variants with Freebayes ( Garrison & Marth, 2012). The assembly was then scaffolded with Hi-C data ( Rao et al., 2014) using SALSA2 ( Ghurye et al., 2019).

The assembly was checked for contamination as described previously ( Howe et al., 2021). Manual curation ( Howe et al., 2021) was performed using HiGlass ( Kerpedjiev et al., 2018) and Pretext. The mitochondrial genome was assembled using MitoHiFi ( Uliano-Silva et al., 2021), which performed annotation using MitoFinder ( Allio et al., 2020). The genome was analysed and BUSCO scores generated within the BlobToolKit environment ( Challis et al., 2020). Table 3 contains a list of all software tool versions used, where appropriate.

Table 3. Software tools used.

Software tool Version Source
Hifiasm 0.12-r304 Cheng et al., 2021
purge_dups 1.2.3 Guan et al., 2020
SALSA2 2.2 Ghurye et al., 2019
longranger align 2.2.2 https://support.10xgenomics.com/
genome-exome/software/pipelines/
latest/advanced/other-pipelines
freebayes 1.3.1-17-gaa2ace8 Garrison & Marth, 2012
MitoHiFi 2 Uliano-Silva et al., 2021
HiGlass 1.11.6 Kerpedjiev et al., 2018
PretextView 0.2.x https://github.com/wtsi-hpag/
PretextView
BlobToolKit 2.6.4 Challis et al., 2020

Data availability

European Nucleotide Archive: Aporia crataegi (black veined white). Accession number PRJEB45674; https://identifiers.org/ena.embl/PRJEB45674.

The genome sequence is released openly for reuse. The A. crataegi genome sequencing initiative is part of the Darwin Tree of Life (DToL) project. All raw sequence data and the assembly have been deposited in INSDC databases. Raw data and assembly accession identifiers are reported in Table 1.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Wellcome through core funding to the Wellcome Sanger Institute (206194) and the Darwin Tree of Life Discretionary Award (218328). Fieldwork was supported by a NERC fellowship (NE/L011522/1) and an ERC grant (ModelGenom Land 757648) to KL. AH is supported by a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) David Phillips Fellowship (BB/N020146/1).

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

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved]

Author information

Members of the Darwin Tree of Life Barcoding collective are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5744972.

Members of the Wellcome Sanger Institute Tree of Life programme are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5744840.

Members of Wellcome Sanger Institute Scientific Operations: DNA Pipelines collective are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5746904.

Members of the Tree of Life Core Informatics collective are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5743293.

Members of the Darwin Tree of Life Consortium are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5638618.

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. Asher J, Warren M, Fox R, et al. : The millennium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland.Oxford University Press, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  3. Challis R, Richards E, Rajan J, et al. : BlobToolKit - interactive quality assessment of genome assemblies. G3 (Bethesda). 2020;10(4):1361–74. 10.1534/g3.119.400908 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cheng H, Concepcion GT, Feng X, et al. : Haplotype-resolved de Novo assembly using phased assembly graphs with Hifiasm. Nat Methods. 2021;18(2):170–75. 10.1038/s41592-020-01056-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Garrison E, Marth G: Haplotype-based variant detection from short-read sequencing.arXiv: 1207.3907, July, 2012. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  6. Ghurye J, Rhie A, Walenz BP, et al. : Integrating Hi-C links with assembly graphs for chromosome-scale assembly. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019;15(8): e1007273. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007273 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Guan D, McCarthy SA, Wood J, et al. : Identifying and removing haplotypic duplication in primary genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2020;36(9):2896–98. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Howe K, Chow W, Collins J, et al. : Significantly improving the quality of genome assemblies through curation. GigaScience. 2021;10(1): giaa153. 10.1093/gigascience/giaa153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jugovic J, Grando M, Genov T: Microhabitat selection of Aporia crataegi (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) larvae in a traditionally managed landscape. J Insect Conserv. 2017;21(2):307–18. 10.1007/s10841-017-9977-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kerpedjiev P, Abdennur N, Lekschas F, et al. : HiGlass: web-based visual exploration and analysis of genome interaction maps. Genome Biol. 2018;19(1):125. 10.1186/s13059-018-1486-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kim TG, Han YG, Kwon O, et al. : Changes in Aporia crataegi’s potential habitats in accordance with climate changes in the northeast asia. Hangug hwangyeong saengtae haghoeji. 2015;38(1):15–23. 10.5141/ecoenv.2015.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Manley C: British moths and butterflies: a photographic guide.Bloomsbury Publishing, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  13. Manni M, Berkeley MR, Seppey M, et al. : BUSCO Update: novel and streamlined workflows along with broader and deeper phylogenetic coverage for scoring of eukaryotic, prokaryotic, and viral genomes. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38(10):4647–54. 10.1093/molbev/msab199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Pratt C: Modern review of the demise of aporia crataegi L.: the black-veined white. Entomol Rec J Var. 1983. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  15. Rao SSP, Huntley MH, Durand NC, et al. : A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell. 2014;159(7):1665–80. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Todisco V, Vodă R, Prosser SWJ, et al. : Next generation sequencing-aided comprehensive geographic coverage sheds light on the status of rare and extinct populations of Aporia butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):13970. 10.1038/s41598-020-70957-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Tolman T, Lewington R: Collins butterfly guide.HarperCollins UK, 2008. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  18. Uliano-Silva M, Nunes JGF, Krasheninnikova K, et al. : marcelauliano/MitoHiFi: mitohifi_v2.0. 2021. 10.5281/zenodo.5205678 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Van Swaay C, Wynhoff I, Verovnik R, et al. : IUCN red list of threatened species: Aporia crataegi. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2010. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
Wellcome Open Res. 2025 Mar 1. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.23182.r119364

Reviewer response for version 2

Ryan Laurent 1

This is a concise and clear report on the genomic sequencing of Aporia crataegi following in the tradition of Wellcome Open Research genome data notes. I do not have anything to add but the correct use of plural after "RNA data" followed by were (not "was") is a necessary edit.

Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

phylogenetics of Lepidoptera

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.

Wellcome Open Res. 2022 Oct 17. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.19596.r52406

Reviewer response for version 1

Olli-Pekka Smolander 1

The authors present the documentation of a genome sequencing and assembly of a single individual of A. crataegi. In general the work and results are reported with good rigour. However, there are a few points which in my opinion should be improved.

  • In the abstract it is said that the assembly is from an individual male A.crataegi. However, in the Genome sequence report, it is said that the genome was sequenced from a single female. As it clearly cannot be both, please correct one or the other. To me it seems that the male would be the correct one.

  • It might be beneficial to report also the length distributions of the transcripts.

  • As manufacturers instructions may change, or there may be several options to choose from, it should be reported with more detail how the sequencing libraries were made. In the current for, it is not possibly to replicate work with certainty.

  • For the RNA-Seq and Hi-C, it would be interesting to see the amounts of the generated data. Similarly, for the PacBio and 10x read clouds, the amount of data would be more exact way to report than the average coverage.

  • Genome assembly methodology should be reported in somewhat increased detail. If there are modifications to default parameters for used software, those should be reported, or if default parameters are used, it should also be mentioned. Similarly, it would be good to report how many contigs or scaffolds were produced in each stage. From the description it is not entirely clear how the polishing was made after calling the variants, i.e., how was the consensus sequence produced?

Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?

No

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Genomics research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Wellcome Open Res. 2022 Oct 17. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.19596.r52410

Reviewer response for version 1

Linlin Zhang 1

This article mainly reports a genome resource of the butterfly Aporia crataegi. At first, it gives a brief introduction of Aporia crataegi’s habitats, distribution and an ecological issue that this butterfly faced. The butterfly disappeared from the British Isles around 1925 and failed to be reintroduced. The abundance of Aporia crataegi is declining in many countries. Then, it describes the genome assembly results in detail including materials, sequencing methods and several basic data of the genome. Overall, it provides a high quality genome of Aporia crataegi with 26 chromosomal-level scaffolds and a high Busco score, however, if researchers want to give some ideas from a genomic perspective on this butterfly’s current status, they still need to do more research about the Aporia crataegi’s genome.

There are two mistakes in this article needed to be corrected:

  1. In the “Genome sequence report” part, the first sentence “a single female” should be “a single male”.

  2. In table 1, “Scaffold N50 length (Mb)” should be 25.5 rather than 9.6.

There are two suggestions:

  1. You can provide a Busco score of the gene set to tell us the quality of the genome annotation result.

  2. Do all the softwares use default parameters? If not, specific parameter settings should be given.

Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

EvoDevoGenomics

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.

Associated Data

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

    Data Availability Statement

    European Nucleotide Archive: Aporia crataegi (black veined white). Accession number PRJEB45674; https://identifiers.org/ena.embl/PRJEB45674.

    The genome sequence is released openly for reuse. The A. crataegi genome sequencing initiative is part of the Darwin Tree of Life (DToL) project. All raw sequence data and the assembly have been deposited in INSDC databases. Raw data and assembly accession identifiers are reported in Table 1.


    Articles from Wellcome Open Research are provided here courtesy of The Wellcome Trust

    RESOURCES