Skip to main content
Wellcome Open Research logoLink to Wellcome Open Research
. 2026 Aug 27;11:552. [Version 1] doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.27407.1

The chromosomal genome sequence of the mauve stinger jellyfish, Pelagia noctiluca (Forsskål, 1775) (Semaeostomeae: Pelagiidae)

Lucas Leclère 1, Manon Boosten 2, Michael N Dawson 3, Graeme Oatley 4, Elizabeth Sinclair 4, Eerik Aunin 4, Noah Gettle 4, Camilla Santos 4, Michael Paulini 4, Haoyu Niu 4, Victoria McKenna 4, Rebecca O’Brien 4; Wellcome Sanger Institute Tree of Life Management, Samples and Laboratory team; Wellcome Sanger Institute Scientific Operations: Sequencing Operations; Wellcome Sanger Institute Tree of Life Core Informatics team; EBI Aquatic Symbiosis Genomics Data Portal Team; Aquatic Symbiosis Genomics Project Leadershipa
PMCID: PMC13615355  PMID: 42802753

Abstract

We present a genome assembly from a specimen of Pelagia noctiluca (Mauve Stinger; Cnidaria; Scyphozoa; Semaeostomeae; Pelagiidae). The genome sequence has a total length of 357.08 megabases. Most of the assembly (94.91%) is scaffolded into 21 chromosomal pseudomolecules. The mitochondrial genome has also been assembled, with a length of 16.7 kilobases. Gene annotation of this assembly by Ensembl identified 19 573 protein-coding genes.

Keywords: Pelagia noctiluca, Mauve Stinger, genome sequence, chromosomal, Semaeostomeae

Species taxonomy

Eukaryota; Opisthokonta; Metazoa; Eumetazoa; Cnidaria; Scyphozoa; Semaeostomeae; Pelagiidae; Pelagia; Pelagia noctiluca (Fabricius, 1775) (NCBI:txid400838).

Background

The medusa Pelagia noctiluca (Forsskål, 1775), also called the mauve stinger, is one of the most studied scyphozoan species due to its global distribution ( OBIS, 2024), unique life history, and tendency to form problematic outbreaks that disrupt commercial and recreational activities in coastal waters ( Marambio et al., 2021). Pelagia noctiluca has a holoplanktonic life history, a rare feature among epipelagic scyphozoan medusae, allowing it to inhabit both coastal and oceanic regions ( Boosten et al., 2025). Its range extends from the warm tropical waters, such as in the Gulf of Mexico ( Graham et al., 2003) to colder regions, such as the North Sea ( Licandro et al., 2010; Russell, 1970), or the South Atlantic Ocean ( Miller et al., 2012). It is known as the most abundant scyphozoan medusa in the Mediterranean Sea ( Canepa et al., 2014).

Pelagia noctiluca lacks a polyp stage. Once fertilised, the eggs develop directly into ephyrae ( Helm et al., 2015), which then form juvenile medusae ( Ballesteros et al., 2021). The umbrella of mature medusae, which can measure more than 20 cm in diameter, features medium-sized warts on the outer side, eight tentacles and eight rhopalia emerging alternately from clefts between lappets at the bell margin, and a circular coronal muscle on the inner side ( Ballesteros et al., 2021; Russell, 1970). In laboratory conditions, the full life cycle can be completed in about three months ( Ballesteros et al., 2022; Ramondenc et al., 2019). As its name suggests (noctiluca – ‘shines by night’), this species is known for its bioluminescence ( Russell, 1970), generated and propagated throughout the body as a response to external stimuli ( Herring, 1990). Karyotypic analyses indicate that Pelagia noctiluca is a diploid organism with a haploid number of n = 21 and that there is an XY sex-determining mechanism ( Vitturi et al., 1994).

This species was selected as a non-photosymbiotic reference taxon for the “Symbioses in 3D: Diversity and Dynamics in Pelagic Symbioses across the Tree of Life” project. Nonetheless, its unique position as an epipelagic holoplanktonic scyphozoan also makes its microbiome and cobionts of direct interest ( Tinta et al., 2012). As a globally distributed taxon with some genetic patchiness ( Ale et al., 2019; Glynn et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2012; Stopar et al., 2010), there is potential for genotype-by-environment interactions in shaping microbiomes.

This chromosome-level genome generated from a Pelagia noctiluca adult female ( Figure 1) collected in Villefranche-sur-Mer (France) will be broadly used for population genomics studies and for uncovering the biology of this significant species. Its peculiar direct development will be used to better understand life cycle evolution in cnidarians. Tools are currently being developed to establish this species as a relevant developmental genomics model, promising to reveal many aspects of scyphozoan biology.

Figure 1. Photograph of the Pelagia noctiluca specimen (jsPelNoct2) used for genome sequencing.


Figure 1.

Methods

Sample acquisition

A mature female medusa of Pelagia noctiluca (specimen ID PORT0000303, ToLID jsPelNoct2; Figure 1) was collected at the sea surface with a hand net in the bay of Villefranche-sur-Mer, France (latitude 43.673, longitude 7.3282) between 7 and 9 AM on 2022-09-05. The specimen was identified by LL and MB and starved for 24 hours in the laboratory in 20 L buckets of Millipore-filtered natural seawater at 18 °C. The oral arms, tentacles, and gonads were dissected in a Petri dish into 12 samples (four samples containing pieces of oral arms, two samples containing four tentacles each, and two samples containing pieces of gonads). These samples were then immediately transferred into cryotubes, snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and transferred to a −80 °C freezer.

Nucleic acid extraction

Protocols for high molecular weight (HMW) DNA extraction developed at the Wellcome Sanger Institute (WSI) Tree of Life Core Laboratory are available on protocols.io ( Howard et al., 2025). The jsPelNoct2 sample was weighed and triaged to determine the appropriate extraction protocol. Tissue from the oral arm was homogenised by powermashing using a PowerMasher II tissue disruptor. HMW DNA was extracted using the Manual Modified Omega Bio-Tek protocol. DNA was sheared into an average fragment size of 12–20 kb following the Megaruptor®3 for LI PacBio protocol. Sheared DNA was purified by automated SPRI (solid-phase reversible immobilisation). 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. For this sample, the final post-shearing DNA had a Qubit concentration of 21.0 ng/μL, with a fragment size of 14.7 kb. The 260/280 spectrophotometric ratio was 2.01, and the 260/230 ratio was 2.88.

RNA was extracted from oral arm tissue of the jsPelNoct2 specimen in the Tree of Life Laboratory at the WSI using the RNA Extraction: Automated MagMax™ mirVana protocol. The RNA concentration was assessed using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer and a Qubit Fluorometer using the Qubit RNA Broad-Range Assay kit. Analysis of the integrity of the RNA was done using the Agilent RNA 6000 Pico Kit and Eukaryotic Total RNA assay.

PacBio HiFi library preparation and sequencing

Library preparation and sequencing were performed at the WSI Scientific Operations core. Libraries were prepared using the SMRTbell Prep Kit 3.0 (Pacific Biosciences, California, USA), following the manufacturer’s instructions. The kit includes reagents for end repair/A-tailing, adapter ligation, post-ligation SMRTbell bead clean-up, and nuclease treatment. Size selection and clean-up were performed using diluted AMPure PB beads (Pacific Biosciences). DNA concentration was quantified using a Qubit Fluorometer v4.0 (ThermoFisher Scientific) and the Qubit 1X dsDNA HS assay kit. Final library fragment size was assessed with the Agilent Femto Pulse Automated Pulsed Field CE Instrument (Agilent Technologies) using the gDNA 55 kb BAC analysis kit.

The sample was sequenced on a Revio instrument (Pacific Biosciences, California, USA). Prepared libraries selected for multiplexing were pooled based on genome size, library molarity, and the intended plex level. Primers were annealed and polymerases were bound to generate circularised complexes, following the manufacturer’s instructions. Complexes were purified using SMRTbell beads, diluted to the Revio loading concentration, and spiked with a Revio sequencing internal control. The pooled libraries were sequenced on a Revio 25M Plex SMRT cell in a 4-plex run. SMRT Link software (Pacific Biosciences), a web-based workflow manager, was used to configure and monitor the run and to carry out primary and secondary data analysis.

Hi-C

Sample preparation and crosslinking

The Hi-C sample was prepared from 20–50 mg of frozen oral arm tissue of the jsPelNoct2 sample using the Arima-HiC v2 kit (Arima Genomics). Following the manufacturer’s instructions, tissue was fixed and DNA crosslinked using TC buffer to a final formaldehyde concentration of 2%. The tissue was homogenised using the Diagnocine Power Masher-II. Crosslinked DNA was digested with a restriction enzyme master mix, biotinylated, and ligated. Clean-up was performed with SPRISelect beads before library preparation. DNA concentration was measured with the Qubit Fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Qubit HS Assay Kit. The biotinylation percentage was estimated using the Arima-HiC v2 QC beads.

Hi-C library preparation and sequencing

Biotinylated DNA constructs were fragmented using a Covaris E220 sonicator and size selected to 400–600 bp using SPRISelect beads. DNA was enriched with Arima-HiC v2 kit Enrichment beads. End repair, A-tailing, and adapter ligation were carried out with the NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Prep Kit (New England Biolabs), following a modified protocol where library preparation occurs while DNA remains bound to the Enrichment beads. Library amplification was performed using KAPA HiFi HotStart mix and a custom Unique Dual Index (UDI) barcode set (Integrated DNA Technologies). Depending on sample concentration and biotinylation percentage determined at the crosslinking stage, libraries were amplified with 10–16 PCR cycles. Post-PCR clean-up was performed with SPRISelect beads. Libraries were quantified using the AccuClear Ultra High Sensitivity dsDNA Standards Assay Kit (Biotium) and a FLUOstar Omega plate reader (BMG Labtech).

Prior to sequencing, libraries were normalised to 10 ng/μL. Normalised libraries were quantified again to create equimolar and/or weighted 2.8 nM pools. Pool concentrations were checked using the Agilent 4200 TapeStation (Agilent) with High Sensitivity D500 reagents before sequencing. Sequencing was performed using paired-end 150 bp reads on the Illumina NovaSeq 6000.

RNA library preparation and sequencing

Libraries were prepared using the NEBNext® Ultra II Directional RNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina (New England Biolabs), following the manufacturer’s instructions. Poly(A) mRNA was isolated from 100 ng of total RNA using oligo (dT) beads, converted to cDNA, and uniquely indexed; 14 PCR cycles were performed. Libraries were prepared with an intended fragment size of 100–300 bp. Libraries were quantified, normalised, and pooled equimolarly to a final concentration of 2.8 nM before dilution to 150 pM for loading. Sequencing was carried out on the Illumina NovaSeq X, generating paired-end reads.

Genome 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 ( Cheng et al., 2021) with the --primary option. Haplotypic duplications were identified and removed using purge_dups ( Guan et al., 2020). The Hi-C reads ( Rao et al., 2014) were mapped to the primary contigs using bwa-mem2 ( Vasimuddin et al., 2019), and the contigs were scaffolded in YaHS ( Zhou et al., 2023) with the --break option for handling potential misassemblies. The scaffolded assemblies were evaluated using Gfastats ( Formenti et al., 2022), BUSCO ( Manni et al., 2021) and MerquryFK ( Rhie et al., 2020).

The mitochondrial genome was assembled using MitoHiFi ( Uliano-Silva et al., 2023). The MitoHiFi reference was the mitochondrial genome of Pelagia noctiluca (NC_080358.1).

Assembly curation

The assembly was decontaminated using the Assembly Screen for Cobionts and Contaminants ( ASCC) pipeline. TreeVal was used to generate the flat files and maps for use in curation. Manual curation was conducted primarily in PretextView and HiGlass ( Kerpedjiev et al., 2018). Scaffolds were visually inspected and corrected as described by Howe et al. (2021). Manual corrections included 28 breaks, 43 joins, and removal of 69 haplotypic duplications. This reduced the scaffold count by 22.6%, increased the scaffold N50 by 31.5%, and reduced the total assembly length by 10.1%. The curation process is described at sanger-tol/curation-resources . PretextSnapshot was used to generate a Hi-C contact map of the final assembly.

Assembly quality assessment

The Merqury.FK tool ( Rhie et al., 2020) was run in a Singularity container ( Kurtzer et al., 2017) to evaluate k-mer completeness and assembly quality for the primary assembly, the alternate haplotig set, and their union using the k-mer database ( k = 31) computed prior to genome assembly. The analysis outputs included assembly QV scores and completeness statistics.

The genome was analysed using the BlobToolKit pipeline, a Nextflow implementation of the earlier Snakemake version ( Challis et al., 2020). PacBio reads were aligned to the assembly using minimap2 ( Li, 2018) and processed with SAMtools ( Danecek et al., 2021) to generate coverage tracks. The pipeline runs BUSCO ( Manni et al., 2021) using lineages identified from the NCBI Taxonomy ( Schoch et al., 2020). For the three basal BUSCO lineages, eukaryota, bacteria and archaea, BUSCO genes are aligned to the UniProt Reference Proteomes database ( Bateman et al., 2023) using DIAMOND BLASTp ( Buchfink et al., 2021). The genome assembly is divided into chunks based on the density of BUSCO genes from the closest taxonomic lineage, and each chunk is aligned to the UniProt Reference Proteomes database using DIAMOND BLASTx. Sequences without DIAMOND BLASTx hits are extracted using seqtk and aligned to the NT database using BLASTn ( Altschul et al., 1990). The outputs are consolidated into a BlobDir for visualisation in BlobToolKit. The BlobToolKit pipeline was developed using nf-core tooling ( Ewels et al., 2020) and MultiQC ( Ewels et al., 2016), with containerisation through Docker ( Merkel, 2014) and Singularity ( Kurtzer et al., 2017).

Genome sequence report

Sequence data

PacBio sequencing of the Pelagia noctiluca specimen generated 16.18 Gb (gigabases) from 1.57 million reads, which were used to assemble the genome. GenomeScope2.0 analysis using a p = 2 model gave a k-mer-based genome size estimate of 358.68 Mb, with a heterozygosity of 3.01% and repeat content of 42.70% ( Figure 2). These estimates guided expectations for the assembly. Based on the estimated genome size, the sequencing data provided approximately 44× coverage. Hi-C sequencing produced 116.15 Gb from 384.59 million reads, which were used to scaffold the assembly. RNA sequencing data were also generated and are available in public sequence repositories. Table 1 summarises the specimen and sequencing details.

Figure 2. Frequency distribution of k-mers generated using GenomeScope2.


Figure 2.

The plot shows observed and modelled k-mer spectra, providing estimates of genome size, heterozygosity, and repeat content based on unassembled sequencing reads.

Table 1. Specimen and sequencing data for Pelagia noctiluca (BioProject PRJEB71881).

Platform PacBio HiFi Hi-C RNA-seq
ToLID jsPelNoct2 jsPelNoct2 jsPelNoct2
Specimen ID PORT0000303 PORT0000303 PORT0000303
BioSample (source individual) SAMEA111439783 SAMEA111439783 SAMEA111439783
BioSample (tissue) SAMEA111439802 SAMEA111439802 SAMEA111439797
Tissue oral arm oral arm oral arm
Instrument Revio Illumina NovaSeq 6000 Illumina NovaSeq X
Run accessions ERR12510611 ERR12507428 ERR13669962
Read count total 1.57 million reads 384.59 million read pairs 47.96 million read pairs
Base count total 16.18 Gb 116.15 Gb 14.48 Gb

Assembly statistics

The assembly strategy prioritised a complete and contiguous primary pseudohaplotype. Contigs corresponding to residual alternate haplotigs were also deposited in INSDC databases. The final primary assembly has a total length of 357.08 Mb in 431 scaffolds, with 84 gaps, and a scaffold N50 of 16.77 Mb ( Table 2). The alternate haplotig set has a total length of 430.96 Mb in 1 968 contigs, with a contig N50 of 1.37 Mb.

Table 2. Genome assembly data for Pelagia noctiluca.

Genome assembly Primary assembly
Assembly name jsPelNoct2.1
Assembly accession GCA_963924455.1
Alternate haplotype accession GCA_963924465.1
Assembly level chromosome
Span (Mb) 357.08
Number of chromosomes 21
Number of contigs 515
Contig N50 6.03 Mb
Number of scaffolds 431
Scaffold N50 16.77 Mb
Organelles Mitochondrial genome: 16.70 kb

The scaffold count follows the NCBI assembly statistics and excludes organelle assemblies, which are reported separately where present.

Most of the assembly sequence (94.91%) was assigned to 21 chromosomal-level scaffolds. These chromosome-level scaffolds, confirmed by Hi-C data, are named according to size ( Figure 3; Table 3). During curation, we noted that the exact order and orientation of the centromeric repeat regions is unknown.

Figure 3. Hi-C contact map of the Pelagia noctiluca genome assembly.


Figure 3.

Assembled chromosomes are shown in order of size and labelled along the axes, with a megabase scale shown below. The plot was generated using PretextSnapshot.

Table 3. Chromosomal pseudomolecules in the primary genome assembly of Pelagia noctiluca jsPelNoct2.

INSDC accession Molecule Length (Mb) GC%
OZ004315.1 1 20.81 37.50
OZ004316.1 2 20.32 37.50
OZ004317.1 3 18.95 37
OZ004318.1 4 18.66 37
OZ004319.1 5 18.55 37
OZ004320.1 6 18.24 37
OZ004321.1 7 17.83 37.50
OZ004322.1 8 16.83 37
OZ004323.1 9 16.80 37
OZ004324.1 10 16.77 37.50
OZ004325.1 11 16.05 37
OZ004326.1 12 15.13 37.50
OZ004327.1 13 14.53 37
OZ004328.1 14 14.51 37.50
OZ004329.1 15 14.44 37
OZ004330.1 16 14.31 37
OZ004331.1 17 14.30 37
OZ004332.1 18 14.06 37
OZ004333.1 19 13.28 37
OZ004334.1 20 12.96 37
OZ004335.1 21 11.58 37

The mitochondrial genome was also assembled (length 16.7 kb, OZ004336.1). This sequence is included as a contig in the multifasta file of the genome submission and as a standalone record.

Assembly quality metrics

The primary assembly achieves an estimated QV of 61.2 and a k-mer completeness of 62.27%. The union of the primary assembly and alternate haplotig set achieves an estimated QV of 59.8 and a k-mer completeness of 99.54% ( Figure 4). The alternate haplotig set has an estimated QV of 59.4 and a k-mer completeness of 62.60%.

Figure 4. Evaluation of k-mer completeness using MerquryFK.


Figure 4.

This plot illustrates the recovery of k-mers from the original read data in the final assemblies. The horizontal axis represents k-mer multiplicity, and the vertical axis shows the number of k-mers. The black curve represents k-mers that appear in the reads but are not assembled. The green curve corresponds to k-mers shared by both assemblies, and the red and blue curves show k-mers found only in one assembly.

BUSCO v.5.5.0 analysis using the metazoa_odb10 reference set ( n = 954) identified 87.2% of the expected gene set (single = 87.1%, duplicated = 0.1%). The snail plot in Figure 5 summarises the scaffold length distribution and other assembly statistics for the primary assembly. The blob plot in Figure 6 shows the distribution of scaffolds by GC proportion and coverage.

Figure 5. Assembly metrics for jsPelNoct2.1.


Figure 5.

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 metazoa_odb10 set is presented at the top right. An interactive version of this figure can be accessed on the BlobToolKit viewer.

Figure 6. BlobToolKit blob plot for jsPelNoct2.1.


Figure 6.

The plot shows base 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 on the BlobToolKit viewer.

Table 4 lists the assembly metric benchmarks adapted from Rhie et al. (2021) and the Earth BioGenome Project Report on Assembly Standards January 2026. The EBP metric, calculated for primary assembly, is 6.C.Q61, meeting the recommended 6.C.Q40 reference standard.

Table 4. Earth Biogenome Project summary metrics for the Pelagia noctiluca assembly.

Measure Value Benchmark
EBP summary (primary) 6.C.Q61 6.C.Q40
Contig N50 length 6.03 Mb ≥ 1 Mb
Scaffold N50 length 16.77 Mb = chromosome N50
Consensus quality (QV) Primary: 61.2; alternate haplotig set: 59.4; primary plus alternate haplotig set: 59.8 ≥ 40
k-mer completeness Primary: 62.27%; primary plus alternate haplotig set: 99.54%; alternate haplotig set: 62.60% > 90%
BUSCO C:87.2% [S:87.1%, D:0.1%], F:5.8%, M:7.0%, n:954 S > 90%; D < 5%
Percentage of assembly assigned to chromosomes 94.91% ≥ 90%

Notes: The EBP summary uses log10(Contig N50); chromosome-level (C) or log10(Scaffold N50); Q (Merqury QV). BUSCO: C=complete; S=single-copy; D=duplicated; F=fragmented; M=missing; n=orthologues.

Genome annotation report

The Pelagia noctiluca genome assembly (GCA_963924455.1) was annotated by Ensembl at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI). This annotation includes 102 026 transcribed mRNAs from 19 573 protein-coding and 72 437 non-coding genes. The average transcript length is 2 802.89 bp, with an average of 1.11 coding transcripts per gene and 2.83 exons per transcript. Further details of this annotation are available from the Ensembl annotation page.

Author information

Contributors are listed at the following links:

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.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Marine Resources Centre (CRBM) of the Institut de la Mer de Villefranche (IMEV), supported by EMBRC-France, for help with sample collection, as well as Alexandre Alié (IMEV) for sample shipment.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation through a grant (GBMF8897) to the Wellcome Sanger Institute to support the Aquatic Symbiosis Genomics Project, and by Wellcome through core funding to the Wellcome Sanger Institute (220540). L.L. and M.B. were supported by the CNRS 80|Prime CNRS program and the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-19-CE13-0003).

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, 3 approved with reservations]

Data availability

European Nucleotide Archive: Pelagia noctiluca. Accession number PRJEB71881; https://identifiers.org/ena.embl/PRJEB71881. The genome sequence is released openly for reuse. The Pelagia noctiluca genome sequencing initiative is part of the Aquatic Symbiosis Genomics Project (PRJEB43743) and the Sanger Institute Tree of Life Programme (PRJEB43745). All raw sequence data and the assembly have been deposited in INSDC databases. Raw data and assembly accession identifiers are reported in Tables 1 and 2.

Production code used in genome assembly at the WSI Tree of Life is available at https://github.com/sanger-tol . Table 5 lists software versions used in this study.

Table 5. Software versions and sources used for Pelagia noctiluca.

Software Version Source
BLAST 2.14.0 https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/executables/blast+/
BlobToolKit 4.3.3 https://github.com/blobtoolkit/blobtoolkit
BUSCO 5.5.0; 5.4.3 https://gitlab.com/ezlab/busco
bwa-mem2 2.2.1 https://github.com/bwa-mem2/bwa-mem2
DIAMOND 2.1.8 https://github.com/bbuchfink/diamond
fasta_windows 0.2.4 https://github.com/tolkit/fasta_windows
FastK 1.1 https://github.com/thegenemyers/FASTK
GenomeScope2.0 2.0.1 https://github.com/tbenavi1/genomescope2.0
Gfastats 1.3.6 https://github.com/vgl-hub/gfastats
Hifiasm 0.19.8-r603 https://github.com/chhylp123/hifiasm
HiGlass 1.13.4 https://github.com/higlass/higlass
MerquryFK 1.1.0-c1 https://github.com/thegenemyers/MERQURY.FK
Minimap2 2.24-r1122 https://github.com/lh3/minimap2
MitoHiFi 2 https://github.com/marcelauliano/MitoHiFi
MultiQC 1.14; 1.17 and 1.18 https://github.com/MultiQC/MultiQC
Nextflow 23.04.1; 23.10.0 https://github.com/nextflow-io/nextflow
PretextSnapshot 0.0.4 https://github.com/sanger-tol/PretextSnapshot
PretextView 1.0.3 https://github.com/sanger-tol/PretextView
purge_dups 1.2.3 https://github.com/dfguan/purge_dups
samtools 1.16.1; 1.17; 1.18 https://github.com/samtools/samtools
sanger-tol/ascc 0.1.0 https://github.com/sanger-tol/ascc
sanger-tol/blobtoolkit 0.3.0 https://github.com/sanger-tol/blobtoolkit
sanger-tol/curationpretext 1.4.2 https://github.com/sanger-tol/curationpretext
Seqtk 1.4-r122 https://github.com/lh3/seqtk
Singularity 3.9.0 https://github.com/sylabs/singularity
TreeVal 1.0.2 https://github.com/sanger-tol/treeval
YaHS 1.1a.2 https://github.com/c-zhou/yahs

References

  1. Ale E, Ramšak A, Stanković D, et al. : Early Pleistocene divergence of Pelagia noctiluca populations (Cnidaria, Medusozoa) between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 2019;99:1753–1764. 10.1017/S0025315419000894 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Ballesteros A, Östman C, Santín A, et al. : Cnidome and morphological features of Pelagia noctiluca (Cnidaria: Scyphozoa) throughout the different life cycle stages. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021;8:714503. 10.3389/fmars.2021.714503 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ballesteros A, Páez D, Santín A, et al. : Successful culture of Pelagia noctiluca (Cnidaria: Scyphozoa) over time: A continuous supply of the holoplanktonic jellyfish for research and industrial applications. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022;9:911383. 10.3389/fmars.2022.911383 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bateman A, Martin M-J, 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]
  6. Boosten M, Sant C, Da Silva O, et al. : Independent transitions to fully planktonic life cycles shaped the global distribution of Medusozoans in the epipelagic zone. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2025;122(22):e2415979122. 10.1073/pnas.2415979122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Buchfink B, Reuter K, Drost H-G: 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]
  8. Canepa A, Fuentes V, Sabatés A, et al. : Pelagia noctiluca in the Mediterranean Sea. Pitt KA, Lucas CH, editors. Jellyfish Blooms. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands;2014;237–66. 10.1007/978-94-007-7015-7_11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Challis R, Richards E, Rajan J, et al. : BlobToolKit – interactive quality assessment of genome assemblies. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2020;10(4):1361–1374. 10.1534/g3.119.400908 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. Glynn F, Houghton JDR, Bastian T, et al. : High-resolution genetic analysis reveals extensive gene flow within the jellyfish Pelagia noctiluca (Scyphozoa) in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2016;117(2):252–263. 10.1111/bij.12654 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Graham WM, Martin DL, Martin JC: In situ quantification and analysis of large jellyfish using a novel video profiler. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2003;254:129–140. 10.3354/meps254129 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Guan D, McCarthy SA, Wood J, et al. : Identifying and removing haplotypic duplication in primary genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2020;36(9):2896–2898. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Helm RR, Tiozzo S, Lilley MKS, et al. : Comparative muscle development of scyphozoan jellyfish with simple and complex life cycles. EvoDevo. 2015;6:1–10. 10.1186/s13227-015-0005-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Herring PJ: Bioluminescent responses of the deep-sea scyphozoan Atolla wyvillei. Mar. Biol. 1990;106:413–417. 10.1007/BF01344321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Howard C, Denton A, Jackson B, et al. : On the path to reference genomes for all biodiversity: Lessons learned and laboratory protocols created in the Sanger Tree of Life core laboratory over the first 2000 species. bioRxiv. 2025. 10.1101/2025.04.11.648334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. 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]
  24. 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]
  25. Licandro P, Conway DVP, Daly Yahia MN, et al. : A blooming jellyfish in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean. Biol. Lett. 2010;6(5):688–691. 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. 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]
  27. Marambio M, Canepa A, Lòpez L, et al. : Unfolding jellyfish bloom dynamics along the Mediterranean Basin by transnational citizen science initiatives. Diversity. 2021;13:274. 10.3390/d13060274 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Merkel D: Docker: Lightweight Linux containers for consistent development and deployment. Linux J. 2014;2014(239):2. 10.5555/2600239.2600241 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Miller B, Heyden S, Gibbons M: Significant population genetic structuring of the holoplanktic scyphozoan Pelagia noctiluca in the Atlantic Ocean. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 2012;34(3):425–430. 10.2989/1814232X.2012.726646 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. OBIS: Pelagia noctiluca (Forsskål, 1775). 2024. Reference Source
  31. Ramondenc S, Ferrieux M, Collet S, et al. : From egg to maturity: A closed system for complete life cycle studies of the holopelagic jellyfish Pelagia noctiluca. J. Plankton Res. 2019;41(3):207–217. 10.1093/plankt/fbz013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. 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]
  36. Russell FS: The Medusae of the British Isles. Volume II: Pelagic Scyphozoa, with a Supplement to the First Volume of Hydromedusae. Cambridge University Press;1970. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schoch CL, Ciufo S, Domrachev M, et al. : NCBI taxonomy: A comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database. 2020;2020:baaa062. 10.1093/database/baaa062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Stopar K, Ramšak A, Trontelj P, et al. : Lack of genetic structure in the jellyfish Pelagia noctiluca (Cnidaria: Scyphozoa: Semaeostomeae) across European Seas. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2010;57:417–428. 10.1016/j.ympev.2010.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Tinta T, Kogovšek T, Malej A, et al. : Jellyfish modulate bacterial dynamic and community structure. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(6):e39274. 10.1371/journal.pone.0039274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. 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]
  41. Vasimuddin M, Misra S, Li H, et al. : Efficient architecture-aware acceleration of BWA-MEM for multicore systems. 2019 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS). IEEE;2019;314–324. 10.1109/IPDPS.2019.00041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Vitturi R, Morello A, Montagnino L, et al. : Analysis of conventionally-stained and banded chromosomes of Pelagia noctiluca (Coelenterata, Scyphomedusae): Evidence for heteromorphic chromosome pair in males. Biologisches Zentralblatt. 1994;113:329–337. [Google Scholar]
  43. 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]
Wellcome Open Res. 2026 Sep 26. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.30167.r166183

Reviewer response for version 1

Adrián Jaimes-Becerra 1

This paper presents a reference genome from a single adult female Pelagia noctiluca. The authors combined PacBio HiFi sequencing, Hi-C, and RNA-seq to produce a 357.08 Mb primary assembly, with 94.91% of the sequence assigned to 21 chromosome-scale scaffolds. This agrees with the chromosome number previously reported from Karyotypic analyses for the species. They also report a 16.7 kb mitochondrial genome and an Ensembl annotation containing 19,573 protein-coding genes. This is a valuable resource for scyphozoan research, and the laboratory and computational work is conducted carefully.

I have two requests for clarification:

-Complete BUSCO recovery in the primary assembly is 87.2%. Please discuss possible reasons for the missing BUSCO genes.

-The manuscript reports 16.18 Gb of PacBio sequence data from 1.57 million reads used for assembly. Please clarify whether these values refer to the data before filtering or to the reads retained after filtering.

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:

Evolutionary biology, Cnidaria, Bioinformatics.

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. 2026 Sep 25. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.30167.r166181

Reviewer response for version 1

Shawn M Burgess 1

This report describes the assembly of the mauve stinger genome. This jellyfish is broadly distributed in the earth's oceans and seas indicating it has highly adaptive properties. A full genome assembly is a foundation for many useful studies involving this animal. The methods are clear and appropriate for a quality assembly. The assembly statistics are good, indicating a high quality assembly. I have no reservations for this manuscript.

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:

Genomics, genetics, genome assembly, regeneration, zebrafish, model organism development.

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. 2026 Sep 15. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.30167.r166177

Reviewer response for version 1

Kiyoshi Naruse 1

Reviewer comments

This manuscript presents the chromosome-level genome assembly and annotation of the mauve stinger jellyfish, Pelagia noctiluca (Forsskål, 1775; jsPelNoct2.1). The assembly appears robust: the HiFi contig N50 is 6.03 Mb, Hi-C scaffolding produced a scaffold N50 of 16.77 Mb, the major scaffolds correspond to the expected chromosome number, and 94.91% of the 357.08 Mb assembly is assigned to chromosome-scale pseudomolecules. The genome-wide Hi-C contact map provides convincing support for chromosome-scale organization, with no obvious large-scale misjoins or interchromosomal misassignments. Overall, the nuclear genome assembly can be considered a good chromosome-level resource.

The main issue concerns the completeness and documentation of the gene annotation. BUSCO analysis using metazoa_odb10 recovered C:87.2% [S:87.1%, D:0.1%], F:5.8%, and M:7.0% (n = 954). The extremely low duplicated BUSCO proportion is reassuring and indicates that the gene set is not inflated by redundant haplotype-derived models. However, the complete score is below the commonly targeted 90% level, and the 12.8% fragmented or missing BUSCOs suggest that the annotation remains improvable.

Major comments

1. Distinguish assembly and annotation completeness.

The authors should state clearly whether the reported BUSCO result was obtained in protein, transcriptome, or genome mode. BUSCO should also be performed in genome mode on the final nuclear assembly using the same metazoa_odb10 dataset. Comparing genome-mode and protein-mode BUSCO results will determine whether the fragmented/missing BUSCOs reflect limitations of the assembly or incomplete gene models.

2. Assess fragmented and missing BUSCO loci.

The authors should investigate the approximately 55 fragmented and 67 missing BUSCOs. A supplementary table should report their genome-mode status, chromosome/scaffold location, proximity to gaps or contig boundaries, local repeat content, HiFi read depth, RNA-seq support, and protein-homology support. This would clarify whether the incomplete BUSCO score arises from gene-prediction failure, conservative filtering, repeat-associated assembly difficulty, or genuine divergence/loss.

3. Report annotation evidence provenance.

Because the Ensembl Gene Annotation Pipeline integrates multiple evidence sources, it is not necessary to generate separate homology-only and RNA-seq-only annotations. However, the manuscript should report the proportion of final gene models supported by: same-species RNA-seq, RNA-seq splice junctions, protein or transcript homology, both RNA-seq and homology, and neither evidence type. This information is important for interpreting the moderate BUSCO completeness.

4. Describe RNA-seq evidence.

The authors should provide details of the RNA-seq data used for annotation, including tissue and developmental/life-history stage, specimen number, sequencing depth, library type, mapping statistics, and the proportion of final models supported by transcript evidence. A limited range of tissues or stages may explain why some conserved genes are fragmented or absent from the final annotation.

5. Provide independent HiFi coverage QC.

A chromosome-wide HiFi read-depth plot would strengthen the assembly assessment. The authors should show window-based median coverage across all pseudomolecules, with chromosome boundaries and approximately 0.5× and 2× coverage reference lines. This would help identify residual haplotigs, collapsed repeats, local anomalies, or high-coverage organellar sequences. The mapping and filtering strategy should be stated.

6. Characterize residual sequences.

The remaining 5.09% of unplaced sequence should be summarized by scaffold length, GC content, HiFi coverage, repeat content, gene content, and taxonomic assignment. Putative mitochondrial sequences should be identified and reported separately from nuclear assembly statistics. A GC–coverage–taxonomy analysis would also help exclude bacterial, symbiont, prey-derived, or other contaminating scaffolds.

Overall assessment

The HiFi/Hi-C assembly of P. noctiluca is structurally convincing and meets the criteria for a chromosome-level nuclear genome. The requested revisions should focus primarily on clarifying and improving the annotation-quality assessment, especially by comparing genome- and protein-mode BUSCO results, examining fragmented/missing BUSCO loci, and documenting the RNA-seq and homology evidence underlying the Ensembl gene models.

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:

Genetics and Genomics of fishes. Fish phylogeny and evolution of Oryzias species.

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, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Wellcome Open Res. 2026 Sep 14. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.30167.r166178

Reviewer response for version 1

Yichen Dai 1

The authors present a chromosome-level genome assembly for the mauve stinger jellyfish,  Pelagia noctiluca , based on PacBio HiFi and Hi-C data, with RNA-seq used for annotation. This is a valuable data note for a non-model, ecologically important cnidarian. However, the assembly completeness and contamination evidence need stronger clarification before the genome can be considered fully validated.

Major concerns:

1. BUSCO completeness:

The final BUSCO score is only 87.2% complete using metazoa_odb10. For a chromosome-level assembly, this is lower than expected. The genome size estimate from GenomeScope2 (358.68 Mb) is very close to the final assembly size (357.08 Mb), which makes the missing BUSCOs even more surprising.

I suggest the authors look into this issue:

(1) Can they report BUSCO scores after each major assembly step to validate which step might be the reason for this relatively low BUSCO score?

(2) Can they test whether missing genes might be present in the alternate haplotig set, in unassembled reads, or in the no-hit scaffolds?

(3) Do they think the missing genes are likely biological (e.g., lineage-specific losses), technical (assembly fragmentation), or caused by purging/curation?

2. Manual curation:

The manuscript states that manual curation included 28 breaks, 43 joins, and removal of 69 haplotypic duplications, reducing total assembly length by 10.1%. This is a substantial amount of sequence. To address this concern, the authors should provide the size and composition of the original primary assembly before cleaning.

3. Decontamination:

ASCC decontamination was performed after Hi-C scaffolding. If contaminants are scaffolded into chromosomes, they may be difficult to remove. More importantly, Figure 6 appears to show a Chordata-assigned sequence of approximately 14.3 Mb in the final assembly. If this is correct, it is a major concern: a 14.3 Mb chordate contaminant would be a relatively large fraction of the genome and could affect scaffolding and annotation.

Can the authors:

(1) Confirm whether the Chordata sequence is still present in the final assembly or whether the figure is from an earlier stage?

(2) If this sequence was retained, why? Or has it been removed?

(3) Report the pre- and post-ASCC assembly sizes and the taxa/proportions removed.

(4) Clarify what the 18.2 Mb of “no-hit” sequence in Figure 6 is?

4. k -mer completeness:

Table 4 reports primary k -mer completeness of 62.27%, while the benchmark is >90%. The union of primary + alternate haplotigs reaches 99.54%, but the primary assembly alone does not. Similarly, BUSCO completeness is 87.2%, below the >90% benchmark. The claim that the assembly meets the “6.C.Q40 reference standard” is only true for the QV/contiguity component; it does not mean the assembly satisfies all EBP metrics. Which assembly (primary, alternate, or union) is being evaluated for each metric? How does the primary assembly reach 6.C.Q61?

5. Non-coding genes:

The Ensembl annotation reports 19,573 protein-coding genes and 72,437 non-coding genes. The number of non-coding genes is very high, is it possible that this is affected by repeats or fragmented transcripts? The authors should provide annotation quality metrics, such as BUSCO scores for the annotated protein set. Since they also have RNA-seq data, can they show the proportion of genes supported by RNA-seq evidence? In addition, will it be possible to show the number of transcripts with complete ORFs? What might be causing this very high non-coding gene number?

Minor concern: Table 5 lists multiple versions for some of the software used (e.g. BUSCO). Where different versions used in different steps?

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:

Genome assembly, cross-species comparison

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, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Wellcome Open Res. 2026 Aug 31. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.30167.r166176

Reviewer response for version 1

Abdelmalek Lekired 1

The chromosomal genome sequence of the mauve stinger jellyfish, Pelagia noctiluca (Forsskål, 1775) (Semaeostomeae: Pelagiidae)

The authors present a genome assembly from a specimen of Pelagia noctiluca (Mauve Stinger; Cnidaria; Scyphozoa; Semaeostomeae; Pelagiidae). The genome assembly has a total length of 357.08 Mb, with 94.91% of the assembly scaffolded into 21 chromosomal pseudomolecules. The mitochondrial genome was also assembled, with a length of 16.7 kb. Gene annotation performed by Ensembl identified 19,573 protein-coding genes.

Report:

The authors present a chromosome-level genome assembly of the mauve stinger jellyfish, Pelagia noctiluca (Forsskål, 1775) (Semaeostomeae: Pelagiidae). The genome was sequenced using PacBio HiFi technology and scaffolded using Hi-C data generated with the Arima Genomics system.

The results show that 94.91% of the final assembly was anchored into 21 chromosomal pseudomolecules.

However, the final BUSCO analysis showed only 87% completeness based on the metazoa_odb10 dataset. This relatively low level of completeness raises concerns regarding the assembly process and, particularly, the effects of the purging and decontamination steps. I recommend that the authors provide additional information and analyses to clarify the following points.

1- The GenomeScope2 analysis estimates a genome size of approximately 357.999 Mb, with an estimated heterozygosity of 3.01%. The final assembly, after cleaning, has a size of 357.08 Mb, which is remarkably close to the GenomeScope2 estimate. However, the final BUSCO analysis reports only 87% completeness. Given the close agreement between the estimated genome size and the final assembly size, the relatively low BUSCO completeness is unexpected. How do the authors explain this discrepancy? It would be useful to clarify whether the missing BUSCOs are attributable to genuine biological characteristics of the species, sequencing limitations, assembly fragmentation, or losses introduced during the cleaning/decontamination and haplotig-purging steps.

2- The authors indicate that cleaning and contaminant removal were performed after the Hi-C scaffolding step. Since 94.91% of the final assembly is anchored into 21 chromosomal pseudomolecules, it is important to clarify the origin and proportion of the sequences removed during decontamination. In particular, the manuscript should specify whether the reported approximately 10% of contaminant sequences removed was calculated relative to the final 357 Mb assembly or relative to the original primary assembly. The size and characteristics of the original assembly should also be reported so that the extent of sequence loss during the cleaning and decontamination steps can be evaluated.

3- The authors used Purge_Dups to remove duplicated sequences. However, Hifiasm already performs internal procedures for identifying and removing redundant/duplicated sequences during assembly. I therefore wonder whether the same duplicated haplotigs may have been removed at multiple stages of the workflow. The authors should clarify the exact sequence of duplication-removal steps, including which duplicated sequences were removed by Hifiasm and which were subsequently removed by Purge_Dups. It would also be useful to report the assembly size and BUSCO completeness after each major purging step to assess whether genuine genomic sequences may have been inadvertently removed.

4- I recommend that the authors provide BUSCO results for the primary Hifiasm assembly before haplotig purging, after Purge_Dups, and after Hi-C scaffolding and final cleaning/decontamination. This would allow readers to evaluate how each step affected genome completeness and determine whether the reduction in BUSCO completeness occurred during assembly, haplotig purging, scaffolding, or decontamination. I also recommend performing decontamination before Hi-C scaffolding, or, at minimum, providing a clear justification for performing decontamination after scaffolding. Removing contaminant sequences before scaffolding may help prevent non-target sequences from being incorporated into chromosomal pseudomolecules and would provide a cleaner starting point for the Hi-C scaffolding process.

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

Partly

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:

Invertebrate Genomics, RNAseq, Fungal Genomics, Bacterial Genomics, Assembly and annotation of non model organisms

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, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Associated Data

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

    Data Availability Statement

    European Nucleotide Archive: Pelagia noctiluca. Accession number PRJEB71881; https://identifiers.org/ena.embl/PRJEB71881. The genome sequence is released openly for reuse. The Pelagia noctiluca genome sequencing initiative is part of the Aquatic Symbiosis Genomics Project (PRJEB43743) and the Sanger Institute Tree of Life Programme (PRJEB43745). All raw sequence data and the assembly have been deposited in INSDC databases. Raw data and assembly accession identifiers are reported in Tables 1 and 2.

    Production code used in genome assembly at the WSI Tree of Life is available at https://github.com/sanger-tol . Table 5 lists software versions used in this study.

    Table 5. Software versions and sources used for Pelagia noctiluca.

    Software Version Source
    BLAST 2.14.0 https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/executables/blast+/
    BlobToolKit 4.3.3 https://github.com/blobtoolkit/blobtoolkit
    BUSCO 5.5.0; 5.4.3 https://gitlab.com/ezlab/busco
    bwa-mem2 2.2.1 https://github.com/bwa-mem2/bwa-mem2
    DIAMOND 2.1.8 https://github.com/bbuchfink/diamond
    fasta_windows 0.2.4 https://github.com/tolkit/fasta_windows
    FastK 1.1 https://github.com/thegenemyers/FASTK
    GenomeScope2.0 2.0.1 https://github.com/tbenavi1/genomescope2.0
    Gfastats 1.3.6 https://github.com/vgl-hub/gfastats
    Hifiasm 0.19.8-r603 https://github.com/chhylp123/hifiasm
    HiGlass 1.13.4 https://github.com/higlass/higlass
    MerquryFK 1.1.0-c1 https://github.com/thegenemyers/MERQURY.FK
    Minimap2 2.24-r1122 https://github.com/lh3/minimap2
    MitoHiFi 2 https://github.com/marcelauliano/MitoHiFi
    MultiQC 1.14; 1.17 and 1.18 https://github.com/MultiQC/MultiQC
    Nextflow 23.04.1; 23.10.0 https://github.com/nextflow-io/nextflow
    PretextSnapshot 0.0.4 https://github.com/sanger-tol/PretextSnapshot
    PretextView 1.0.3 https://github.com/sanger-tol/PretextView
    purge_dups 1.2.3 https://github.com/dfguan/purge_dups
    samtools 1.16.1; 1.17; 1.18 https://github.com/samtools/samtools
    sanger-tol/ascc 0.1.0 https://github.com/sanger-tol/ascc
    sanger-tol/blobtoolkit 0.3.0 https://github.com/sanger-tol/blobtoolkit
    sanger-tol/curationpretext 1.4.2 https://github.com/sanger-tol/curationpretext
    Seqtk 1.4-r122 https://github.com/lh3/seqtk
    Singularity 3.9.0 https://github.com/sylabs/singularity
    TreeVal 1.0.2 https://github.com/sanger-tol/treeval
    YaHS 1.1a.2 https://github.com/c-zhou/yahs

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

    RESOURCES