Abstract
We present a genome assembly from a male Acronicta alni (Alder Moth; Arthropoda; Insecta; Lepidoptera; Noctuidae). The assembly contains two haplotypes with total lengths of 470.37 megabases and 472.86 megabases. Most of haplotype 1 (98.95%) is scaffolded into 31 chromosomal pseudomolecules, including the Z chromosome. Haplotype 2 was assembled to scaffold level. The mitochondrial genome has also been assembled and is 15.38 kilobases in length.
Keywords: Acronicta alni, Alder Moth, genome sequence, chromosomal, Lepidoptera
Species taxonomy
Eukaryota; Opisthokonta; Metazoa; Eumetazoa; Bilateria; Protostomia; Ecdysozoa; Panarthropoda; Arthropoda; Mandibulata; Pancrustacea; Hexapoda; Insecta; Dicondylia; Pterygota; Neoptera; Endopterygota; Amphiesmenoptera; Lepidoptera; Glossata; Neolepidoptera; Heteroneura; Ditrysia; Obtectomera; Noctuoidea; Noctuidae; Acronictinae; Acronicta; Acronicta alni (Linnaeus, 1767) (NCBI:txid987860)
Background
Alder Moth ( Acronita alni) is a macromoth in the family Noctuidae. It is local and distributed throughout most of England, Northern Ireland and Wales and, since 2000, has shown a major spread northwards into Scotland ( Randle et al., 2019). It is distributed throughout most of Europe, with sporadic clusters of records across Asia to Japan ( GBIF Secretariat, 2025).
The adult moth has a forewing length of 16–19 mm and has distinctive blackish clouding which extends from the trailing edge, through the centre of the forewing around the kidney mark, to the forewing. Although distinctive, there is some variability in the extent of this clouding. It has a black dagger mark from the trailing corner of the wing, which is a common feature of other Acronictinae, and gives rise to the common name of dagger moths ( Waring et al., 2017).
The adult moth is attracted to mercury vapour light during its flight season in May and June. The larvae feed on a range of broad-leaved trees including birch and alder ( Waring et al., 2017). The third and fourth larval instars resemble bird-droppings and it has been demonstrated that the bent resting pose on a leaf increases the effectiveness of the crypsis ( Suzuki & Sakurai, 2015). However, the final instar is aposematic, with striking black and yellow stripes ( Henwood et al., 2020). It was thought that the change in appearance was linked to an increase in toxins in the larvae ( Gaitonde et al., 2018). However, it has been found that all instars are distasteful to birds, and that the change in defensive mechanism is more likely because the final instar larva has to move to pupate, which would discredit its bird-dropping disguise ( Valkonen et al., 2014). The caterpillar pupates in rotten wood, where it also overwinters ( Waring et al., 2017).
The genome of Acronita alni was sequenced as part of the Darwin Tree of Life Project, a collaborative effort to sequence all named eukaryotic species in the Atlantic Archipelago of Britain and Ireland. It will be useful for research into larval development and more generally for comparative studies across the Lepidoptera. Here we present a chromosomally complete genome sequence for Acronita alni based on one male specimen from Wytham Woods, Oxfordshire, UK.
Genome sequence report
Sequencing data
The genome of a specimen of Acronicta alni ( Figure 1) was sequenced using Pacific Biosciences single-molecule HiFi long reads, generating 52.69 Gb from 5.47 million reads. GenomeScope analysis of the PacBio HiFi data estimated the haploid genome size at 428.53 Mb, with a heterozygosity of 1.31% and repeat content of 18.75%. These values provide an initial assessment of genome complexity and the challenges anticipated during assembly. Based on this estimated genome size, the sequencing data provided approximately 113.0x coverage of the genome. Chromosome conformation Hi-C sequencing produced 112.46 Gb from 744.76 million reads. Table 1 summarises the specimen and sequencing information, including the BioProject, study name, BioSample numbers, and sequencing data for each technology.
Figure 1. Photograph of the Acronicta alni (ilAcrAlni1) specimen used for genome sequencing.
Table 1. Specimen and sequencing data for Acronicta alni.
| Project information | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Study title | Acronicta alni (alder moth) | ||
| Umbrella BioProject | PRJEB74577 | ||
| Species | Acronicta alni | ||
| BioSpecimen | SAMEA10979164 | ||
| NCBI taxonomy ID | 987860 | ||
| Specimen information | |||
| Technology | ToLID |
BioSample
accession |
Organism part |
| PacBio long read sequencing | ilAcrAlni1 | SAMEA10979593 | head and thorax |
| Hi-C sequencing | ilAcrAlni1 | SAMEA10979593 | head and thorax |
| Sequencing information | |||
| Platform |
Run
accession |
Read count | Base count (Gb) |
| Hi-C Illumina NovaSeq 6000 | ERR12861065 | 7.45e+08 | 112.46 |
| PacBio Revio | ERR12875138 | 4.80e+06 | 44.6 |
| PacBio Sequel IIe | ERR12875139 | 6.63e+05 | 8.09 |
Assembly statistics
The genome was assembled into two haplotypes using Hi-C phasing. Haplotype 1 was curated to chromosome level, while haplotype 2 was assembled to scaffold level. The assembly was improved by manual curation, which corrected 47 misjoins or missing joins. These interventions decreased the scaffold count by 5.24%. The final assembly has a total length of 470.37 Mb in 252 scaffolds with 87 gaps, and the scaffold N50 is16.19 Mb ( Table 2).
Table 2. Genome assembly data for Acronicta alni.
| Genome assembly | Haplotype 1 | Haplotype 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Assembly name | ilAcrAlni1.hap1.1 | ilAcrAlni1.hap2.1 |
| Assembly accession | GCA_964056405.1 | GCA_964056265.1 |
| Assembly level | chromosome | scaffold |
| Span (Mb) | 470.37 | 472.86 |
| Number of contigs | 339 | 221 |
| Number of scaffolds | 252 | 131 |
| Longest scaffold (Mb) | 25.91 | None |
| Assembly metrics (benchmark) | Haplotype 1 | Haplotype 2 |
| Contig N50 length
(≥ 1 Mb) |
6.54 Mb | 7.05 Mb |
| Scaffold N50 length
(= chromosome N50) |
16.19 Mb | 16.16 Mb |
| Consensus quality (QV) (≥ 40) | 64.9 | 65.2 |
| k-mer completeness | 77.75% | 77.90% |
| Combined k-mer completeness (≥ 95%) | 99.82% | |
| BUSCO
*
(S > 90%; D < 5%) |
C:98.8%[S:98.0%,D:0.8%],F:0.1%,M:1.1%,n:5286 | - |
| Percentage of assembly mapped to chromosomes
(≥ 90%) |
98.95% | - |
| Sex chromosomes (localised homologous pairs) | Z | - |
| Organelles
(one complete allele) |
Mitochondrial genome: 15.38 kb | - |
* BUSCO scores based on the lepidoptera_odb10 BUSCO set using version 5.5.0. C = complete [S = single copy, D = duplicated], F = fragmented, M = missing, n = number of orthologues in comparison.
The snail plot in Figure 2 provides a summary of the assembly statistics for haplotype 1, indicating the distribution of scaffold lengths and other assembly metrics. Figure 3 shows the distribution of scaffolds by GC proportion and coverage. Figure 4 presents a cumulative assembly plot, with separate curves representing different scaffold subsets assigned to various phyla, illustrating the completeness of the assembly.
Figure 2. Genome assembly of Acronicta alni, ilAcrAlni1.hap1.1: metrics.
The BlobToolKit snail plot provides an overview of assembly metrics and BUSCO gene completeness. The circumference represents the length of the whole genome sequence, and the main plot is divided into 1,000 bins around the circumference. The outermost blue tracks display the distribution of GC, AT, and N percentages across the bins. Scaffolds are arranged clockwise from longest to shortest and are depicted in dark grey. The longest scaffold is indicated by the red arc, and the deeper orange and pale orange arcs represent the N50 and N90 lengths. A light grey spiral at the centre shows the cumulative scaffold count on a logarithmic scale. A summary of complete, fragmented, duplicated, and missing BUSCO genes in the set is presented at the top right. An interactive version of this figure is available at https://blobtoolkit.genomehubs.org/view/GCA_964056405.1/dataset/GCA_964056405.1/snail.
Figure 3. Genome assembly of Acronicta alni, ilAcrAlni1.hap1.1: BlobToolKit GC-coverage plot.
Blob 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/GCA_964056405.1/blob.
Figure 4. Genome assembly of Acronicta alni ilAcrAlni1.hap1.1: 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/GCA_964056405.1/dataset/GCA_964056405.1/cumulative.
Most of the assembly sequence (98.95%) was assigned to 31 chromosomal-level scaffolds. These chromosome-level scaffolds, confirmed by Hi-C data, are named according to size ( Figure 5; Table 3). During curation, chromosome Z was assigned by synteny to the genome of Acronicta leporina (GCA_947256265.1) ( Boyes et al., 2023).
Figure 5. Genome assembly of Acronicta alni ilAcrAlni1.hap1.1: Hi-C contact map of the ilAcrAlni1.hap1.1 assembly, visualised using HiGlass.
Chromosomes are shown in order of size from left to right and top to bottom. An interactive version of this figure may be viewed at https://genome-note-higlass.tol.sanger.ac.uk/l/?d=EOv-3spJTaqBS29fMC4ssA.
Table 3. Chromosomal pseudomolecules in the genome assembly of Acronicta alni, ilAcrAlni1.
| INSDC accession | Name | Length (Mb) | GC% |
|---|---|---|---|
| OZ043914.1 | 1 | 19.09 | 36.5 |
| OZ043915.1 | 2 | 18.73 | 36.5 |
| OZ043916.1 | 3 | 18.56 | 36.5 |
| OZ043917.1 | 4 | 18.26 | 36 |
| OZ043918.1 | 5 | 18.19 | 36.5 |
| OZ043919.1 | 6 | 17.72 | 36.5 |
| OZ043920.1 | 7 | 17.1 | 36.5 |
| OZ043921.1 | 8 | 16.93 | 36.5 |
| OZ043922.1 | 9 | 16.79 | 36 |
| OZ043923.1 | 10 | 16.69 | 36 |
| OZ043924.1 | 11 | 16.68 | 36 |
| OZ043925.1 | 12 | 16.19 | 36.5 |
| OZ043926.1 | 13 | 15.95 | 36.5 |
| OZ043927.1 | 14 | 15.74 | 36.5 |
| OZ043928.1 | 15 | 15.48 | 36.5 |
| OZ043929.1 | 16 | 15.31 | 36.5 |
| OZ043930.1 | 17 | 15.21 | 37 |
| OZ043931.1 | 18 | 15.05 | 37 |
| OZ043932.1 | 19 | 14.92 | 37 |
| OZ043933.1 | 20 | 14.43 | 37 |
| OZ043934.1 | 21 | 14.31 | 36.5 |
| OZ043935.1 | 22 | 13.02 | 38.5 |
| OZ043936.1 | 23 | 12.65 | 37.5 |
| OZ043937.1 | 24 | 12.24 | 37 |
| OZ043938.1 | 25 | 11.01 | 37 |
| OZ043939.1 | 26 | 10.18 | 37 |
| OZ043940.1 | 27 | 8.93 | 38 |
| OZ043941.1 | 28 | 8.81 | 39 |
| OZ043942.1 | 29 | 8.39 | 38 |
| OZ043943.1 | 30 | 6.97 | 38 |
| OZ043913.1 | Z | 25.91 | 36.5 |
| OZ043944.1 | MT | 0.02 | 21 |
The mitochondrial genome was also assembled. This sequence is included as a contig in the multifasta file of the genome submission and as a standalone record in GenBank.
Assembly quality metrics
The estimated Quality Value (QV) and k-mer completeness metrics, along with BUSCO completeness scores, were calculated for each haplotype and the combined assembly. The QV reflects the base-level accuracy of the assembly, while k-mer completeness indicates the proportion of expected k-mers identified in the assembly. BUSCO scores provide a measure of completeness based on benchmarking universal single-copy orthologues.
For haplotype 1, the estimated QV is 64.9, and for haplotype 2, the QV is 65.2. When the two haplotypes are combined, the assembly achieves an estimated QV of 65.1. The k-mer completeness for haplotype 1 is 77.75%, and for haplotype 2 it is 77.90%. When the two haplotypes are combined, the assembly achieves a k-mer completeness of 99.82%. BUSCO 5.5.0 analysis using the lepidoptera_odb10 reference set ( n = 5,286) achieved a completeness score of 98.8% (single = 98.0%, duplicated = 0.8%) for haplotype 1.
Table 2 provides assembly metric benchmarks adapted from Rhie et al. (2021) and the Earth BioGenome Project Report on Assembly Standards September 2024. The assembly achieves the EBP reference standard of 6.C.64.
Methods
Sample acquisition and DNA barcoding
An adult male Acronicta alni (specimen ID Ox001902, ToLID ilAcrAlni1) was collected from Wytham Woods, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom (latitude 51.77, longitude –1.34) on 2021-06-16, using a light trap. The specimen was collected and identified by Douglas Boyes (University of Oxford) and preserved on dry ice.
The initial identification was verified by an additional DNA barcoding process according to the framework developed by Twyford et al. (2024). A small sample was dissected from the specimen and stored in ethanol, while the remaining parts were shipped on dry ice to the Wellcome Sanger Institute (WSI). The tissue was lysed, the COI marker region was amplified by PCR, and amplicons were sequenced and compared to the BOLD database, confirming the species identification ( Crowley et al., 2023). Following whole genome sequence generation, the relevant DNA barcode region was also used alongside the initial barcoding data for sample tracking at the WSI ( Twyford et al., 2024). The standard operating procedures for Darwin Tree of Life barcoding have been deposited on protocols.io ( Beasley et al., 2023).
Metadata collection for samples adhered to the Darwin Tree of Life project standards described by Lawniczak et al. (2022).
Nucleic acid extraction
The workflow for high molecular weight (HMW) DNA extraction at the Wellcome Sanger Institute (WSI) Tree of Life Core Laboratory includes a sequence of procedures: sample preparation and homogenisation, DNA extraction, fragmentation and purification. Detailed protocols are available on protocols.io ( Denton et al., 2023b). The ilAcrAlni1 sample was prepared for DNA extraction by weighing and dissecting it on dry ice ( Jay et al., 2023). Tissue from the head and thorax was homogenised using a PowerMasher II tissue disruptor ( Denton et al., 2023a).
HMW DNA was extracted using the Automated MagAttract v1 protocol ( Sheerin et al., 2023). DNA was sheared into an average fragment size of 12–20 kb in a Megaruptor 3 system ( Todorovic et al., 2023). Sheared DNA was purified by solid-phase reversible immobilisation, using AMPure PB beads to eliminate shorter fragments and concentrate the DNA ( Strickland et al., 2023). The concentration of the sheared and purified DNA was assessed using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer and a Qubit Fluorometer using the Qubit dsDNA High Sensitivity Assay kit. The fragment size distribution was evaluated by running the sample on the FemtoPulse system.
For ULI PacBio sequencing, DNA was fragmented using the Covaris g-TUBE method ( Oatley et al., 2023).
Hi-C sample preparation
Tissue from the head and thorax of the ilAcrAlni1 sample was processed for Hi-C sequencing at the WSI Scientific Operations core, using the Arima-HiC v2 kit. In brief, 20–50 mg of frozen tissue (stored at –80 °C) was fixed, and the DNA crosslinked using a TC buffer with 22% formaldehyde concentration. After crosslinking, the tissue was homogenised using the Diagnocine Power Masher-II and BioMasher-II tubes and pestles. Following the Arima-HiC v2 kit manufacturer's instructions, crosslinked DNA was digested using a restriction enzyme master mix. The 5’-overhangs were filled in and labelled with biotinylated nucleotides and proximally ligated. An overnight incubation was carried out for enzymes to digest remaining proteins and for crosslinks to reverse. A clean up was performed with SPRIselect beads prior to library preparation. Additionally, the biotinylation percentage was estimated using the Qubit Fluorometer v4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Qubit HS Assay Kit and Arima-HiC v2 QC beads.
Library preparation and sequencing
Library preparation and sequencing were performed at the WSI Scientific Operations core.
PacBio HiFi
At a minimum, samples were required to have an average fragment size exceeding 8 kb and a total mass over 400 ng to proceed to the low input SMRTbell Prep Kit 3.0 protocol (Pacific Biosciences, California, USA), depending on genome size and sequencing depth required. Libraries were prepared using the SMRTbell Prep Kit 3.0 (Pacific Biosciences, California, USA) as per the manufacturer's instructions. The kit includes the reagents required for end repair/A-tailing, adapter ligation, post-ligation SMRTbell bead cleanup, and nuclease treatment. Following the manufacturer’s instructions, size selection and clean up was carried out using diluted AMPure PB beads (Pacific Biosciences, California, USA). DNA concentration was quantified using the Qubit Fluorometer v4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) with Qubit 1X dsDNA HS assay kit and the final library fragment size analysis was carried out using the Agilent Femto Pulse Automated Pulsed Field CE Instrument (Agilent Technologies) and gDNA 55kb BAC analysis kit.
A second library preparation step was done for ULI sequencing. The sample requires Covaris g-TUBE shearing to approximately 10 kb prior to library preparation. Ultra-low input libraries were prepared using PacBio SMRTbell® Express Template Prep Kit 2.0 and PacBio SMRTbell® gDNA Sample Amplification Kit. To begin, samples were normalised to 20 ng of DNA. Initial removal of single-strand overhangs, DNA damage repair, and end repair/A-tailing were performed per manufacturer’s instructions. From the SMRTbell® gDNA Sample Amplification Kit, amplification adapters were then ligated. A 0.85X pre-PCR clean-up was performed with Promega ProNex beads and the sample was then divided into two for a dual PCR. PCR reactions A and B each followed the PCR programs as described in the manufacturer’s protocol. A 0.85X post-PCR clean-up was performed with ProNex beads for PCR reactions A and B and DNA concentration was quantified using the Qubit Fluorometer v4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Qubit HS Assay Kit and fragment size analysis was carried out using the Agilent Femto Pulse Automated Pulsed Field CE Instrument (Agilent Technologies) and gDNA 55kb BAC analysis kit. PCR reactions A and B were then pooled, ensuring the total mass was ≥500 ng in 47.4 μl. The pooled sample then repeated the process for DNA damage repair, end repair/A-tailing and additional hairpin adapter ligation. A 1X clean-up was performed with ProNex beads and DNA concentration was quantified using the Qubit and fragment size analysis was carried out using the Agilent Femto Pulse Automated Pulsed Field CE Instrument (Agilent Technologies). Size selection was performed using Sage Sciences' PippinHT system with target fragment size determined by analysis from the Femto Pulse, usually a value between 4000 and 9000 bp. Size selected libraries were then cleaned-up using 1.0X ProNex beads and normalised to 2 nM before proceeding to sequencing.
The sample was sequenced using the Sequel IIe system (Pacific Biosciences, California, USA). The concentration of the library loaded onto the Sequel IIe was in the range 40–135 pM. The SMRT link software, a PacBio web-based end-to-end workflow manager, was used to set-up and monitor the run, as well as perform primary and secondary analysis of the data upon completion.
Additional data was acquired by sequencing on a Revio instrument (Pacific Biosciences, California, USA). Prepared libraries were normalised to 2 nM, and 15 μL was used for making complexes. Primers were annealed and polymerases were hybridised to create circularised complexes according to manufacturer’s instructions. The complexes were purified with the 1.2X clean up with SMRTbell beads. The purified complexes were then diluted to the Revio loading concentration (in the range 200–300 pM), and spiked with a Revio sequencing internal control. Samples were sequenced on Revio 25M SMRT cells (Pacific Biosciences, California, USA). The SMRT link software, a PacBio web-based end-to-end workflow manager, was used to set-up and monitor the run, as well as perform primary and secondary analysis of the data upon completion.
Hi-C
For Hi-C library preparation, DNA was fragmented using the Covaris E220 sonicator (Covaris) and size selected using SPRISelect beads to 400 to 600 bp. The DNA was then enriched using the Arima-HiC v2 kit Enrichment beads. Using the NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Prep Kit (New England Biolabs) for end repair, a-tailing, and adapter ligation. This uses a custom protocol which resembles the standard NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Prep protocol but where library preparation occurs while DNA is bound to the Enrichment beads. For library amplification, 10 to 16 PCR cycles were required, determined by the sample biotinylation percentage. The Hi-C sequencing was performed using paired-end sequencing with a read length of 150 bp on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 instrument.
Genome assembly, curation and evaluation
Assembly
Prior to assembly of the PacBio HiFi reads, a database of k-mer counts ( k = 31) was generated from the filtered reads using FastK. GenomeScope2 ( Ranallo-Benavidez et al., 2020) was used to analyse the k-mer frequency distributions, providing estimates of genome size, heterozygosity, and repeat content.
The HiFi reads were assembled using Hifiasm in Hi-C phasing mode ( Cheng et al., 2021; Cheng et al., 2022), resulting in a pair of haplotype-resolved assemblies. The Hi-C reads were mapped to the primary contigs using bwa-mem2 ( Vasimuddin et al., 2019). The contigs were further scaffolded using the provided Hi-C data ( Rao et al., 2014) in YaHS ( Zhou et al., 2023) using the --break option for handling potential misassemblies. The scaffolded assemblies were evaluated using Gfastats ( Formenti et al., 2022), BUSCO ( Manni et al., 2021) and MERQURY.FK ( Rhie et al., 2020).
The mitochondrial genome was assembled using MitoHiFi ( Uliano-Silva et al., 2023), which runs MitoFinder ( Allio et al., 2020) and uses these annotations to select the final mitochondrial contig and to ensure the general quality of the sequence.
Assembly curation
The assembly was decontaminated using the Assembly Screen for Cobionts and Contaminants (ASCC) pipeline (article in preparation). Flat files and maps used in curation were generated in TreeVal ( Pointon et al., 2023). Manual curation was primarily conducted using PretextView ( Harry, 2022), with additional insights provided by JBrowse2 ( Diesh et al., 2023) and HiGlass ( Kerpedjiev et al., 2018). Scaffolds were visually inspected and corrected as described by Howe et al. (2021). Any identified contamination, missed joins, and mis-joins were corrected, and duplicate sequences were tagged and removed. Sex chromosomes were identified by synteny analysis. The curation process is documented at https://gitlab.com/wtsi-grit/rapid-curation (article in preparation).
Assembly quality assessment
The Merqury.FK tool ( Rhie et al., 2020), run in a Singularity container ( Kurtzer et al., 2017), was used to evaluate k-mer completeness and assembly quality for the primary and alternate haplotypes using the k-mer databases ( k = 31) that were computed prior to genome assembly. The analysis outputs included assembly QV scores and completeness statistics.
A Hi-C contact map was produced for the final version of the assembly. The Hi-C reads were aligned using bwa-mem2 ( Vasimuddin et al., 2019) and the alignment files were combined using SAMtools ( Danecek et al., 2021). The Hi-C alignments were converted into a contact map using BEDTools ( Quinlan & Hall, 2010) and the Cooler tool suite ( Abdennur & Mirny, 2020). The contact map is visualised in HiGlass ( Kerpedjiev et al., 2018).
The blobtoolkit pipeline is a Nextflow port of the previous Snakemake Blobtoolkit pipeline ( Challis et al., 2020). It aligns the PacBio reads in SAMtools and minimap2 ( Li, 2018) and generates coverage tracks for regions of fixed size. In parallel, it queries the GoaT database ( Challis et al., 2023) to identify all matching BUSCO lineages to run BUSCO ( Manni et al., 2021). For the three domain-level BUSCO lineages, the pipeline aligns the BUSCO genes to the UniProt Reference Proteomes database ( Bateman et al., 2023) with DIAMOND blastp ( Buchfink et al., 2021). The genome is also divided into chunks according to the density of the BUSCO genes from the closest taxonomic lineage, and each chunk is aligned to the UniProt Reference Proteomes database using DIAMOND blastx. Genome sequences without a hit are chunked using seqtk and aligned to the NT database with blastn ( Altschul et al., 1990). The blobtools suite combines all these outputs into a blobdir for visualisation.
The blobtoolkit pipeline was developed using nf-core tooling ( Ewels et al., 2020) and MultiQC ( Ewels et al., 2016), relying on the Conda package manager, the Bioconda initiative ( Grüning et al., 2018), the Biocontainers infrastructure ( da Veiga Leprevost et al., 2017), as well as the Docker ( Merkel, 2014) and Singularity ( Kurtzer et al., 2017) containerisation solutions.
Table 4 contains a list of relevant software tool versions and sources.
Table 4. Software tools: versions and sources.
Wellcome Sanger Institute – Legal and Governance
The materials that have contributed to this genome note have been supplied by a Darwin Tree of Life Partner. The submission of materials by a Darwin Tree of Life Partner is subject to the ‘Darwin Tree of Life Project Sampling Code of Practice’, which can be found in full on the Darwin Tree of Life website here. By agreeing with and signing up to the Sampling Code of Practice, the Darwin Tree of Life Partner agrees they will meet the legal and ethical requirements and standards set out within this document in respect of all samples acquired for, and supplied to, the Darwin Tree of Life Project.
Further, the Wellcome Sanger Institute employs a process whereby due diligence is carried out proportionate to the nature of the materials themselves, and the circumstances under which they have been/are to be collected and provided for use. The purpose of this is to address and mitigate any potential legal and/or ethical implications of receipt and use of the materials as part of the research project, and to ensure that in doing so we align with best practice wherever possible. The overarching areas of consideration are:
• Ethical review of provenance and sourcing of the material
• Legality of collection, transfer and use (national and international)
Each transfer of samples is further undertaken according to a Research Collaboration Agreement or Material Transfer Agreement entered into by the Darwin Tree of Life Partner, Genome Research Limited (operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute), and in some circumstances other Darwin Tree of Life collaborators.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Wellcome through core funding to the Wellcome Sanger Institute (220540) and the Darwin Tree of Life Discretionary Award [218328, <a href=https://doi.org/10.35802/218328>https://doi.org/10.35802/218328 </a>].
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
Data availability
European Nucleotide Archive: Acronicta alni (alder moth). Accession number PRJEB74577; https://identifiers.org/ena.embl/PRJEB74577. The genome sequence is released openly for reuse. The Acronicta alni genome sequencing initiative is part of the Darwin Tree of Life (DToL) project and Project Psyche. All raw sequence data and the assembly have been deposited in INSDC databases. The genome will be annotated using available RNA-Seq data and presented through the Ensembl pipeline at the European Bioinformatics Institute. Raw data and assembly accession identifiers are reported in Table 1 and Table 2.
Author information
Members of the University of Oxford and Wytham Woods Genome Acquisition Lab are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12157525.
Members of the Darwin Tree of Life Barcoding collective are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12158331.
Members of the Wellcome Sanger Institute Tree of Life Management, Samples and Laboratory team are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12162482.
Members of Wellcome Sanger Institute Scientific Operations: Sequencing Operations are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12165051.
Members of the Wellcome Sanger Institute Tree of Life Core Informatics team are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12160324.
Members of the Tree of Life Core Informatics collective are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12205391.
Members of the Darwin Tree of Life Consortium are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4783558.
References
- Abdennur N, Mirny LA: Cooler: scalable storage for Hi-C data and other genomically labeled arrays. Bioinformatics. 2020;36(1):311–316. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, et al. : Basic Local Alignment Search Tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3):403–410. 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bateman A, Martin MJ, Orchard S, et al. : UniProt: the Universal Protein Knowledgebase in 2023. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51(D1):D523–D531. 10.1093/nar/gkac1052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Beasley J, Uhl R, Forrest LL, et al. : DNA barcoding SOPs for the Darwin Tree of Life project. protocols.io. 2023; (Accessed 25 June 2024). 10.17504/protocols.io.261ged91jv47/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Boyes D. , University of Oxford and Wytham Woods Genome Acquisition Lab, Darwin Tree of Life Barcoding collective, et al. : The genome sequence of the Miller, Acronicta leporina (Linnaeus, 1758) [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2023;8:49. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.18889.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Buchfink B, Reuter K, Drost HG: Sensitive protein alignments at Tree-of-Life scale using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2021;18(4):366–368. 10.1038/s41592-021-01101-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Challis R, Kumar S, Sotero-Caio C, et al. : Genomes on a Tree (GoaT): a versatile, scalable search engine for genomic and sequencing project metadata across the eukaryotic Tree of Life [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2023;8:24. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.18658.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Challis R, Richards E, Rajan J, et al. : BlobToolKit – interactive quality assessment of genome assemblies. G3 (Bethesda). 2020;10(4):1361–1374. 10.1534/g3.119.400908 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- Crowley L, Allen H, Barnes I, et al. : A sampling strategy for genome sequencing the British terrestrial arthropod fauna [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2023;8:123. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.18925.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- da Veiga Leprevost F, Grüning BA, Alves Aflitos S, et al. : BioContainers: an open-source and community-driven framework for software standardization. Bioinformatics. 2017;33(16):2580–2582. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Danecek P, Bonfield JK, Liddle J, et al. : Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. GigaScience. 2021;10(2): giab008. 10.1093/gigascience/giab008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Denton A, Oatley G, Cornwell C, et al. : Sanger Tree of Life sample homogenisation: PowerMash. protocols.io. 2023a. 10.17504/protocols.io.5qpvo3r19v4o/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Denton A, Yatsenko H, Jay J, et al. : Sanger Tree of Life wet laboratory protocol collection V.1. protocols.io. 2023b. 10.17504/protocols.io.8epv5xxy6g1b/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Diesh C, Stevens GJ, Xie P, et al. : JBrowse 2: a modular genome browser with views of synteny and structural variation. Genome Biol. 2023;24(1): 74. 10.1186/s13059-023-02914-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ewels P, Magnusson M, Lundin S, et al. : MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(19):3047–3048. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ewels PA, Peltzer A, Fillinger S, et al. : The nf-core framework for community-curated bioinformatics pipelines. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38(3):276–278. 10.1038/s41587-020-0439-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Formenti G, Abueg L, Brajuka A, et al. : Gfastats: conversion, evaluation and manipulation of genome sequences using assembly graphs. Bioinformatics. 2022;38(17):4214–4216. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac460 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gaitonde N, Joshi J, Kunte K: Evolution of ontogenic change in color defenses of swallowtail butterflies. Ecol Evol. 2018;8(19):9751–9763. 10.1002/ece3.4426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- GBIF Secretariat: Acronicta alni.2025. Reference Source
- Grüning B, Dale R, Sjödin A, et al. : Bioconda: sustainable and comprehensive software distribution for the life sciences. Nat Methods. 2018;15(7):475–476. 10.1038/s41592-018-0046-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Harry E: PretextView (Paired REad TEXTure Viewer): a desktop application for viewing pretext contact maps.2022. Reference Source
- Henwood B, Stirling P, Lewington R: Field guide to the caterpillars of great Britain and Ireland.1st ed. London: Bloomsbury,2020. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Jay J, Yatsenko H, Narváez-Gómez JP, et al. : Sanger Tree of Life sample preparation: triage and dissection. protocols.io. 2023. 10.17504/protocols.io.x54v9prmqg3e/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Kurtzer GM, Sochat V, Bauer MW: Singularity: scientific containers for mobility of compute. PLoS One. 2017;12(5): e0177459. 10.1371/journal.pone.0177459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lawniczak MKN, Davey RP, Rajan J, et al. : Specimen and sample metadata standards for biodiversity genomics: a proposal from the Darwin Tree of Life project [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. Wellcome Open Res. 2022;7:187. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17605.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Li H: Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(18):3094–3100. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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):4647–4654. 10.1093/molbev/msab199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Merkel D: Docker: lightweight Linux containers for consistent development and deployment. Linux J. 2014;2014(239): 2. [Accessed 2 April 2024]. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- Oatley G, Sampaio F, Kitchin L, et al. : Sanger Tree of Life HMW DNA fragmentation: covaris g-TUBE for ULI PacBio. protocols.io. 2023; [Accessed 13 June 2024]. 10.17504/protocols.io.q26g7pm81gwz/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Pointon DL, Eagles W, Sims Y, et al. : sanger-tol/treeval v1.0.0 – Ancient Atlantis. 2023. 10.5281/zenodo.10047654 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Quinlan AR, Hall IM: BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(6):841–842. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ranallo-Benavidez TR, Jaron KS, Schatz MC: GenomeScope 2.0 and Smudgeplot for reference-free profiling of polyploid genomes. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1): 1432. 10.1038/s41467-020-14998-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Randle Z, Evans-Hill LJ, Parsons MS, et al. : Atlas of Britain and Ireland’s larger moths.Newbury: Pisces Publications,2019. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 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):1665–1680. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rhie A, McCarthy SA, Fedrigo O, et al. : Towards complete and error-free genome assemblies of all vertebrate species. Nature. 2021;592(7856):737–746. 10.1038/s41586-021-03451-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rhie A, Walenz BP, Koren S, et al. : Merqury: reference-free quality, completeness, and phasing assessment for genome assemblies. Genome Biol. 2020;21(1): 245. 10.1186/s13059-020-02134-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sheerin E, Sampaio F, Oatley G, et al. : Sanger Tree of Life HMW DNA extraction: automated MagAttract v.1. protocols.io. 2023. 10.17504/protocols.io.x54v9p2z1g3e/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Strickland M, Cornwell C, Howard C: Sanger Tree of Life fragmented DNA clean up: manual SPRI. protocols.io. 2023. 10.17504/protocols.io.kxygx3y1dg8j/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Suzuki TN, Sakurai R: Bent posture improves the protective value of bird dropping masquerading by caterpillars. Anim Behav. 2015;105:79–84. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Todorovic M, Sampaio F, Howard C: Sanger Tree of Life HMW DNA fragmentation: diagenode Megaruptor ®3 for PacBio HiFi. protocols.io. 2023. 10.17504/protocols.io.8epv5x2zjg1b/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Twyford AD, Beasley J, Barnes I, et al. : A DNA barcoding framework for taxonomic verification in the Darwin Tree of Life project [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2024;9:339. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.21143.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Uliano-Silva M, Ferreira JGRN, Krasheninnikova K, et al. : MitoHiFi: a python pipeline for mitochondrial genome assembly from PacBio high fidelity reads. BMC Bioinformatics. 2023;24(1): 288. 10.1186/s12859-023-05385-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Valkonen JK, Nokelainen O, Jokimäki M, et al. : From deception to frankness: benefits of ontogenetic shift in the anti-predator strategy of alder moth Acronicta alni larvae. Curr Zool. 2014;60(1):114–122. 10.1093/czoolo/60.1.114 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vasimuddin M, Misra S, Li H, et al. : Efficient architecture-aware acceleration of BWA-MEM for multicore systems.In: 2019 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS).IEEE,2019;314–324. 10.1109/IPDPS.2019.00041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Waring P, Townsend M, Lewington R: Field guide to the moths of great Britain and Ireland: third edition.Bloomsbury Wildlife Guides,2017. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- Zhou C, McCarthy SA, Durbin R: YaHS: yet another Hi-C scaffolding tool. Bioinformatics. 2023;39(1): btac808. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]