Abstract
We present a genome assembly from a female specimen of Podarcis melisellensis (Dalmatian wall lizard; Chordata; Lepidosauria; Squamata; Lacertidae). The assembly contains two haplotypes with total lengths of 1,574.91 megabases and 1,437.04 megabases. Most of haplotype 1 (94.94%) is scaffolded into 20 chromosomal pseudomolecules, including the W and Z sex chromosomes, while most of haplotype 2 (97.63%) is scaffolded into 18 chromosomal pseudomolecules. The mitochondrial genome has also been assembled, with a length of 18.2 kilobases.
Keywords: Podarcis melisellensis, Dalmatian wall lizard, genome sequence, chromosomal, Squamata
Species taxonomy
Eukaryota; Opisthokonta; Metazoa; Eumetazoa; Bilateria; Deuterostomia; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Gnathostomata; Teleostomi; Euteleostomi; Sarcopterygii; Dipnotetrapodomorpha; Tetrapoda; Amniota; Sauropsida; Sauria; Lepidosauria; Squamata; Bifurcata; Unidentata; Episquamata; Laterata; Lacertibaenia; Lacertidae; Lacertinae; Podarcis; Podarcis melisellensis (Braun, 1877) (NCBI:txid65482)
Background
The Dalmatian wall lizard Podarcis melisellensis (Braun, 1877; Figure 1) is a diurnal lacertid lizard with a distribution along the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea and numerous islands from northern Italy to Albania ( Böhme, 1986). The Dalmatian wall lizard is classified as Least Concerned (LC) by the IUCN ( Bowles, 2024).
Figure 1.
A) Female and B) male Podarcis melisellensis photographed on the island of Vis, Croatia. Note that the specimen selected for genome sequencing is from the same island, but not shown on the photographs. Photographs by Tim De Ridder ( A) and Annelies Jacobs ( B).
This species is one of 28 currently described species of the genus Podarcis. P. melisellensis is most closely related to the group of P. ionicus, P. tauricus, P. gaigeae and P. milensis, which are also native to the Balkan region. The divergence of P. melisellensis and these species is estimated to have occurred ca. 7 MYA ( Yang et al., 2021).
The Dalmatian wall lizard inhabits a variety of habitats, including rocks, cliffs, open woodland, meadows and Mediterranean shrubland. Individuals can be active all year, but reproduction is ( Yang et al., 2021) generally restricted to spring and early summer. Podarcis melisellensis is oviparous and Meiri et al. (2020) reports an average clutch size of 2.53. Lizards from island populations can vary substantially in body size and colouration ( Böhme, 1986), the latter dominated by brown, grey and green colours, with a variety of dorsal patterns, including melanistic populations. This species is one of several Podarcis that exhibit ventral colour polymorphism with yellow, orange/red and white morphs ( Huyghe et al., 2007).
Podarcis melisellensis belongs to the Balkan group of the genus Podarcis, which consists of 10 currently described species. Within this group, reference genomes are publicly available for P. cretensis ( Poulakakis et al., 2024), P. gaigeae, and P. erhardii. The reference genome of P. melisellensis will be a valuable resource, both for comparative studies above the species level, as well as studies addressing the population genetic history and phenotypic differentiation within P. melisellensis.
Genome sequence report
Sequencing data
The genome of a specimen of Podarcis melisellensis was sequenced using Pacific Biosciences single-molecule HiFi long reads, generating 60.50 Gb (gigabases) from 5.68 million reads. GenomeScope analysis of the PacBio HiFi data estimated the haploid genome size at 1,435.94 Mb, with a heterozygosity of 0.57% and repeat content of 20.99%. 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 41.0x coverage of the genome. Chromosome conformation Hi-C sequencing produced 360.88 Gb from 2,389.96 million reads. Table 1 summarises the specimen and sequencing information.
Table 1. Specimen and sequencing data for Podarcis melisellensis.
| Project information | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Study title | Podarcis melisellensis (Dalmatian wall lizard) | ||
| Umbrella BioProject | PRJEB76775 | ||
| Species | Podarcis melisellensis | ||
| BioSpecimen | SAMEA115336775 | ||
| NCBI taxonomy ID | 65482 | ||
| Specimen information | |||
| Technology | ToLID | BioSample accession | Organism part |
| PacBio long read sequencing | rPodMel1 | SAMEA115336785 | terminal body |
| Hi-C sequencing | rPodMel1 | SAMEA115336785 | terminal body |
| Sequencing information | |||
| Platform | Run accession | Read count | Base count (Gb) |
| Hi-C Illumina NovaSeq X | ERR13317838 | 1.16e+09 | 175.15 |
| Hi-C Illumina NovaSeq X | ERR13317837 | 1.23e+09 | 185.73 |
| PacBio Revio | ERR13304158 | 5.68e+06 | 60.5 |
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 80 misjoins or missing joins. These interventions decreased the scaffold count by 6.76%. The final assembly has a total length of 1,574.91 Mb in 385 scaffolds, with 823 gaps, and a scaffold N50 of 91.07 Mb ( Table 2).
Table 2. Genome assembly data for Podarcis melisellensis.
| Genome assembly | Haplotype 1 | Haplotype 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Assembly name | rPodMel1.hap1.1 | rPodMel1.hap2.1 |
| Assembly accession | GCA_964234715.1 | GCA_964234825.1 |
| Assembly level | chromosome | chromosome |
| Span (Mb) | 1,574.91 | 1,437.04 |
| Number of contigs | 1,208 | 954 |
| Number of scaffolds | 385 | 200 |
| Longest scaffold (Mb) | 136.76 | 135.53 |
| Assembly metrics
*
(benchmark) |
Haplotype 1 | Haplotype 2 |
| Contig N50 length
(≥ 1 Mb) |
3.03 Mb | 3.11 Mb |
| Scaffold N50 length
(= chromosome N50) |
91.07 Mb | 92.09 Mb |
| Consensus quality (QV) (≥ 40) | 62.3 | 62.5 |
| k-mer completeness | 88.41% | 84.66% |
| Combined
k-mer
completeness (≥ 95%) |
99.63% | |
| BUSCO**
(S > 90%; D < 5%) |
C:95.3%[S:93.3%,D:2.0%],
F:0.8%,M:4.0%,n:7,480 |
C:92.1%[S:90.4%,D:1.7%],
F:1.0%,M:6.9%,n:7,480 |
| Percentage of assembly
mapped to chromosomes (≥ 90%) |
94.94% | 97.63% |
| Sex chromosomes (localised
homologous pairs) |
W and Z | - |
| Organelles
(one complete allele) |
Mitochondrial genome:
18.2 kb |
- |
* BUSCO scores based on the sauropsida_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, 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 Podarcis melisellensis, rPodMel1.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 sauropsida_odb10 set is presented at the top right. An interactive version of this figure is available at https://blobtoolkit.genomehubs.org/view/GCA_964234715.1/dataset/GCA_964234715.1/snail.
Figure 3. Genome assembly of Podarcis melisellensis, rPodMel1.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_964234715.1/dataset/GCA_964234715.1/blob.
Figure 4. Genome assembly of Podarcis melisellensis, rPodMel1.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_964234715.1/dataset/GCA_964234715.1/cumulative.
Most of the assembly sequence (94.94%) was assigned to 20 chromosomal-level scaffolds, representing 18 autosomes and the W and Z sex chromosomes. These chromosome-level scaffolds, confirmed by Hi-C data, are named according to size ( Figure 5; Table 3).
Figure 5. Genome assembly of Podarcis melisellensis, rPodMel1.hap1.1: Hi-C contact map of the rPodMel1.hap1.1 assembly, produced in PretextView.
Chromosomes are shown in order of size from left to right and top to bottom.
Table 3. Chromosomal pseudomolecules in the genome assembly of Podarcis melisellensis, rPodMel1.
| Haplotype 1 | Haplotype 2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INSDC
accession |
Name | Length
(Mb) |
GC% | INSDC
accession |
Name | Length
(Mb) |
GC% |
| OZ174275.1 | 1 | 136.76 | 43 | OZ174246.1 | 1 | 135.53 | 43 |
| OZ174276.1 | 2 | 125.27 | 44 | OZ174247.1 | 2 | 123.94 | 44 |
| OZ174277.1 | 3 | 120.99 | 43 | OZ174248.1 | 3 | 119.86 | 43 |
| OZ174278.1 | 4 | 105.59 | 43 | OZ174249.1 | 4 | 106.02 | 43 |
| OZ174279.1 | 5 | 102.05 | 43.5 | OZ174250.1 | 5 | 103.24 | 43.5 |
| OZ174280.1 | 6 | 99.26 | 43.5 | OZ174251.1 | 6 | 99.69 | 43.5 |
| OZ174281.1 | 7 | 92.56 | 43 | OZ174252.1 | 7 | 92.09 | 43 |
| OZ174282.1 | 8 | 91.07 | 45.5 | OZ174253.1 | 8 | 90.46 | 45.5 |
| OZ174283.1 | 9 | 79.6 | 43 | OZ174254.1 | 9 | 79.3 | 43 |
| OZ174284.1 | 10 | 76.59 | 43.5 | OZ174255.1 | 10 | 77.4 | 43.5 |
| OZ174285.1 | 11 | 63.5 | 43.5 | OZ174256.1 | 11 | 63.51 | 43.5 |
| OZ174286.1 | 12 | 61.17 | 43.5 | OZ174257.1 | 12 | 61.11 | 43.5 |
| OZ174287.1 | 13 | 56.24 | 45.5 | OZ174258.1 | 13 | 56.11 | 45.5 |
| OZ174288.1 | 14 | 53.09 | 45.5 | OZ174259.1 | 14 | 52.75 | 45.5 |
| OZ174290.1 | 15 | 45.01 | 45.5 | OZ174260.1 | 15 | 44.86 | 45.5 |
| OZ174291.1 | 16 | 42.19 | 46.5 | OZ174261.1 | 16 | 42.62 | 46.5 |
| OZ174292.1 | 17 | 41.62 | 44.5 | OZ174262.1 | 17 | 41.35 | 44.5 |
| OZ174294.1 | 18 | 13.43 | 48.5 | OZ174263.1 | 18 | 13.21 | 48.5 |
| OZ174293.1 | W | 38.85 | 46 | ||||
| OZ174289.1 | Z | 50.28 | 44 | ||||
| OZ174295.1 | MT | 0.02 | 36.5 | ||||
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.
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 62.3, and for haplotype 2, 62.5. When the two haplotypes are combined, the assembly achieves an estimated QV of 62.4. The k-mer recovery for haplotype 1 is 88.41%, and for haplotype 2 84.66%, while the combined haplotypes have a k-mer recovery of 99.63%. BUSCO 5.5.0 analysis using the sauropsida_odb10 reference set ( n = 7,480) identified 95.3% of the expected gene set (single = 93.3%, duplicated = 2.0%) for haplotype 1.
Table 2 provides assembly metric benchmarks adapted from Rhie et al. (2021) and the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP) Report on Assembly Standards September 2024. The assembly achieves the EBP reference standard of 6.C.Q62.
Methods
Sample acquisition
The specimen, an adult female P. melisellensis lizard (specimen ID SAN25002445, ToLID rPodMel1) was collected 2023-05-01 from a site on the island of Vis (latitude: 43.048141; longitude: 16.081184). The specimen belongs to the nominal subspecies P. m. melisellensis. The specimen was caught by noosing, standard morphometric measurements were taken and the tip of the tail (ca. 2 cm) was collected and preserved in ethanol. The specimen was released again at the site of capture. Field work was conducted under the permit ID 517-10-1-2-23-4. The specimen was collected and identified by Lisa Van Linden (University of Antwerp, Belgium).
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 rPodMel1 sample was prepared for DNA extraction by weighing and dissecting it on dry ice ( Jay et al., 2023). Tissue from the terminal body was homogenised using a PowerMasher II tissue disruptor ( Denton et al., 2023a). HMW DNA was extracted using the Manual MagAttract v1 protocol ( Strickland et al., 2023b). 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., 2023a). The concentration of the sheared and purified DNA was assessed using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer and Qubit Fluorometer using the Qubit dsDNA High Sensitivity Assay kit. Fragment size distribution was evaluated by running the sample on the FemtoPulse system.
Hi-C sample preparation
Tissue from the terminal body of the rPodMel1 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.
Samples were sequenced 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 bound 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 X 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. Flat files and maps used in curation were generated via the TreeVal pipeline ( Pointon et al., 2023). Manual curation was conducted primarily in PretextView ( Harry, 2022) and HiGlass ( Kerpedjiev et al., 2018), with additional insights provided by JBrowse2 ( Diesh et al., 2023). Scaffolds were visually inspected and corrected as described by Howe et al. (2021). Any identified contamination, missed joins, and mis-joins were amended, and duplicate sequences were tagged and removed. The curation process is documented at https://gitlab.com/wtsi-grit/rapid-curation.
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 both haplotypes using the k-mer databases ( k = 31) 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 was visualised in HiGlass ( Kerpedjiev et al., 2018).
The blobtoolkit pipeline is a Nextflow ( Di Tommaso et al., 2017) 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 Tree of Life collaborator. 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 undertaken according to a Research Collaboration Agreement or Material Transfer Agreement entered into by the Tree of Life collaborator, Genome Research Limited (operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute) and in some circumstances other Tree of Life collaborators.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Wellcome through core funding to the Wellcome Sanger Institute (220540). N.F. was funded by Starting Grants from the European Research Council (948126) and the Swedish Research Council (2020-03650). L.V.L. was supported by a PhD fellowship (ID: 1102623N) from the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
[version 1; peer review: 3 approved]
Data availability
European Nucleotide Archive: Podarcis melisellensis (Dalmatian wall lizard). Accession number PRJEB76775; https://identifiers.org/ena.embl/PRJEB76775. The genome sequence is released openly for reuse. The Podarcis melisellensis genome assembly is provided by the Wellcome Sanger Institute Tree of Life Programme ( https://www.sanger.ac.uk/programme/tree-of-life/). 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 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.
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]
- Böhme W: Handbuch der reptilien und amphibien Europas (Vol. 2/II.).Aula-Verlag,1986. [Google Scholar]
- Bowles P: Podarcis melisellensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2024;2024: e.T61549A137855479. 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2024-1.RLTS.T61549A137855479.en [DOI] [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]
- 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]
- Di Tommaso P, Chatzou M, Floden EW, et al. : Nextflow enables reproducible computational workflows. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35(4):316–319. 10.1038/nbt.3820 [DOI] [PubMed] [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]
- 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
- 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]
- Huyghe K, Vanhooydonck B, Herrel A, et al. : Morphology, performance, behavior and ecology of three color morphs in males of the lizard Podarcis melisellensis. Integr Comp Biol. 2007;47(2):211–20. 10.1093/icb/icm043 [DOI] [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]
- 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]
- Meiri S, Avila L, Bauer AM, et al. : The global diversity and distribution of lizard clutch sizes. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2020;29(9):1515–1530. 10.1111/geb.13124 [DOI] [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]
- Pointon DL, Eagles W, Sims Y, et al. : sanger-tol/treeval v1.0.0 – Ancient Atlantis. 2023. 10.5281/zenodo.10047654 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Poulakakis N, Lymberakis P, Stratakis M, et al. : The genome sequence of the Cretan wall lizard, Podarcis cretensis (Wettstein, 1952) [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. Wellcome Open Res. 2024;9:161. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.21176.1 [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]
- 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]
- Strickland M, Cornwell C, Cornwell C: Sanger Tree of Life fragmented DNA clean up: manual SPRI. protocols.io. 2023a. 10.17504/protocols.io.kxygx3y1dg8j/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Strickland M, Moll R, Cornwell C, et al. : Sanger Tree of Life HMW DNA extraction: manual MagAttract. protocols.io. 2023b. 10.17504/protocols.io.6qpvr33novmk/v1 [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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Yang W, Feiner N, Pinho C, et al. : Extensive introgression and mosaic genomes of Mediterranean endemic lizards. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1): 2762. 10.1038/s41467-021-22949-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [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]