Abstract
Promethis valgipes is an important fungus-eating beetle distributed in central China, Korea, and Japan. However, research on its biology and evolution has been limited by the lack of a high-quality genome. Here, we report a chromosome-level genome assembly of P. valgipes, generated using an integrated approach that combines PacBio HiFi long reads, Illumina short reads, and Hi-C data. The final genome assembly spans 213.69 Mb, with 98.91% (211.35 Mb) of the total sequence anchored to 10 chromosomes. The genome assembly consists of 19 scaffolds and 30 contigs, with scaffold and contig N50 values of 21.50 Mb and 17.10 Mb, respectively. BUSCO analysis using the insecta_odb10 dataset (n = 1,367) indicated high completeness, with 99.7% of conserved genes detected (99.3% single-copy and 0.4% duplicated). Repetitive elements constituted 41.74% (89.19 Mb) of the genome, and 13544 protein-coding genes were identified. This high-quality genome provides a foundation for studying the ecology, genetics, and evolution of P. valgipes.
Background & Summary
The Tenebrionidae (Coleoptera) is a large and diverse beetle family, comprising over 30,000 described species across eight to ten subfamilies1,2. Members of this family are widely distributed globally and exhibit remarkable adaptability to diverse environmental conditions3. Most tenebrionid species are detritivorous at both larval and adult stages, playing essential roles in terrestrial food webs4. Based on ecological preferences, Tenebrionidae can be broadly divided into two groups: species closely associated with trees, and those whose larvae transition from decaying wood to soil habitats4. The latter group is particularly well-adapted to arid environments and is widely distributed in desert ecosystems. These beetles have evolved a suite of morphological, physiological, and behavioral adaptations that facilitate survival under extreme aridity, thereby contributing substantially to nutrient cycling in desert ecosystems5,6.
The diversity of feeding strategies and habitats within Tenebrionidae has driven considerable morphological variation and substantial economic impacts. Many species are notable agricultural pests; for instance, Tribolium spp. are cosmopolitan pests of stored products such as flour, corn, and peanuts7. Conversely, the protein-rich larvae of these species have potential as sustainable feed for pets, including reptiles and birds8. Beyond economic relevance, certain tenebrionid species also provide ecological benefits. Notably, Tenebrio molitor Linnaeus and Uloma spp. can biodegrade polystyrene through synergistic interactions with their gut microbiota9. High-quality genome assemblies are essential for understanding the biology, ecology, and evolutionary history of Tenebrionidae. As a major stored-product pest and a representative of the largest insect order, Tribolium castaneum is a well-established model for insect development10. Its genome shows expansions in chemoreceptor and detoxification gene families, and its development is more insect-typical than that of Drosophila, making it a valuable system for functional genomics and RNAi-based gene characterization11. More recently, chromosome-level genome assemblies have been published for eight Tenebrionidae beetles, including T. castaneum12, T. molitor13, Ulomoides dermestoides14, Prionychus ater15, Eledona agricola16, Lagria hirta17, Diaperis boleti18, and Phaleria cadaverina19 providing important genomic resources for comparative and evolutionary studies within the family. Despite recent progress, high-quality genomes in Tenebrionidae remain limited, and additional chromosome-level assemblies are needed to advance comparative genomics and clarify the evolutionary history of this diverse group.
In this study, we present a chromosome-level genome assembly of Promethis valgipes (Marseul, 1876), an important fungus-feeding beetle distributed across central China, Korea, and Japan20. P. valgipes causes substantial damage to shiitake mushroom cultivation at both larval and adult stages. The larvae bore into cultivation logs, leading to wood decay and rendering them unsuitable for production, while adults feed on fruiting bodies, resulting in significant yield losses. To date, no high-quality genomic resource has been reported for the subfamily Stenochiinae. Therefore, the high-quality genome of P. valgipes generated in this study provides an important reference for this subfamily and will contribute to a deeper understanding of its evolutionary biology. The assembly was generated using PacBio HiFi, Illumina, and Hi-C sequencing, followed by comprehensive annotation of repetitive elements, non-coding RNAs, and protein-coding genes. This high-quality reference genome provides a valuable resource for investigating the evolutionary history, ecological adaptations, and functional genomics of Tenebrionidae.
Methods
Sample collection and sequencing
For parallel DNA and RNA sequencing, an adult male of P. valgipes was collected in Xinyang, Henan Province, China, on 6 July 2025. Muscle tissue, specifically from the pronotum and posterior abdomen, was dissected from the specimen and used for DNA/RNA extraction and Hi-C library construction. To minimize exogenous contamination, the dissected tissue was rinsed in phosphate-buffered saline for 10 minutes. The sample was then flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen for 20 minutes and stored at −80 °C until sequencing.
Genomic DNA was extracted using the CTAB method and then purified with a Grandomics Genomic DNA Kit for downstream sequencing21. Total RNA was isolated from the same individual using TRIzol Reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific). A PCR-free Illumina library was subsequently constructed from the extracted DNA using the TruSeq DNA PCR-Free Kit, generating 150 bp paired-end reads. Hi-C libraries were prepared following a standard workflow that included formaldehyde cross-linking and MboI digestion22. Short-read sequencing was conducted on the Illumina NovaSeq. 6000 platform, while long-read sequencing was performed on the PacBio Sequel II (HiFi mode). For the PacBio platform, a 20 kb SMRTbell library was generated using the SMRTbell Express Template Prep Kit 2.0. All library preparation and sequencing were performed by Berry Genomics (Beijing, China). In total, the sequencing effort generated 83.2 Gb of data, comprising 19.81 Gb of PacBio HiFi long reads (~92.71 × coverage), 30.91 Gb of Illumina short reads (144.67×), 21.22 Gb of Hi-C data (99.30×), and 11.26 Gb of RNA-seq data (Table 1).
Table 1.
Statistics of the sequencing data used for genome assembly.
| Libraries | Insert sizes (bp) | Clean data (Gb) | Sequencing coverage (×) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illumina | 350 | 30.91 | 144.67 |
| PacBio HiFi | 20 Kb | 19.81 | 92.71 |
| Hi-C | 350 | 21.22 | 99.30 |
| RNA | 350 | 11.26 | — |
Genome assembly
To guide the selection of appropriate assembly strategies and parameter settings, we conducted a genome survey to estimate genome size, heterozygosity, and repeat content. Illumina sequencing reads were quality-controlled using BBTools v38.8223. The processing included duplicate removal with clumpify.sh, adapter and low-quality base trimming (Q < 20) using bbduk.sh, and filtering out reads containing more than five ambiguous bases. Poly-A, poly-G, and poly-C tails longer than 10 bp were also trimmed. The filtered reads were then analyzed using GenomeScope v2.024 for genome survey estimation. The estimated genome size was 209.69 Mb, with duplicated sequences accounting for 31.37% of the genome. The heterozygosity rate was 1.51%, indicating relatively high genetic diversity (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.

Genome size, heterozygosity, and repeat content of the Promethis valgipes genome were estimated using GenomeScope. The genome was estimated to be 209.69 Mb in size, with a heterozygosity rate of 1.51% and a duplication rate of 31.37%.
The draft genome of P. valgipes was assembled from PacBio HiFi reads using Hifiasm v0.19.825 with default parameters. To reduce redundancy due to heterozygosity, haplotigs were removed using Purge_Dups v1.2.526 with a haploid cutoff of 70. Hi-C reads were mapped to the contigs using Juicer v1.6.227, and the assembly was subsequently scaffolded into chromosome-scale linkage groups with 3D-DNA v18092228. We manually inspected the assembly using Juicebox v1.11.027 and corrected potential misassemblies to generate the final Hi-C–based assembly. Potential contaminants were identified using MMseqs. 2 v11.1229 to perform BLASTN-like searches against the NCBI nucleotide and UniVec databases. In addition, a dedicated BLASTN30 (BLAST + v2.11.0) search against UniVec was conducted to detect vector sequences. Sequences showing > 90% similarity to known contaminants were automatically removed using stringent filtering criteria, whereas sequences with 80–90% similarity were further validated by BLASTN searches against the NCBI nucleotide database. The final assembled genome passed NCBI’s automatic contamination screening with no significant contaminant sequences detected, reflecting high sample quality and sequencing accuracy.
To distinguish autosomes from sex chromosomes, PacBio HiFi and Illumina reads were mapped to the final assembly, and chromosome-level coverage was calculated. However, repeat-rich chromosomes may exhibit artificially elevated coverage due to ambiguous read mapping. Chr02, Chr04, and Chr09 showed approximately two-fold higher coverage than other chromosomes, likely due to their higher repeat content rather than true copy-number variation. Therefore, chromosome-specific coverage values were removed from Table 3 to avoid misinterpretation. To distinguish autosomes from sex chromosomes, the X chromosome was further validated through synteny analysis with Tribolium castaneum, taking advantage of the conserved characteristics of insect X chromosomes. Syntenic blocks were identified using MCScanX31 and visualized with TBtools32. Overall, chromosome 10 was identified as the X chromosome based on its strong syntenic correspondence with the X chromosome of T. castaneum (Fig. 3). Scaffolds longer than 10 kb in the P. valgipes genome were retained for downstream assembly evaluation and genome annotation. The chromosome-level assembly spanned 213.69 Mb with a GC content of 36.97% (Table 2). The assembly achieved scaffold and contig N50 values of 21.50 Mb and 17.10 Mb, respectively, and comprised 19 scaffolds and 30 contigs. Notably, 98.91% (211.35 Mb) of the assembly was anchored to 10 chromosomes, with chromosome sizes ranging from 11.38 Mb to 36.93 Mb (Fig. 2, Fig. 4; Table 3). Furthermore, the final assembly closely matches the genome size estimated by k-mer analysis using GenomeScope (209.69 Mb).
Table 3.
Statistics for chromosomes sequence length.
| Chromosome ID | Sequences Length (bp) |
|---|---|
| Chr01 | 36925200 |
| Chr02 | 24400300 |
| Chr03 | 23186253 |
| Chr04 | 21661016 |
| Chr05 | 21501033 |
| Chr06 | 20216928 |
| Chr07 | 19623316 |
| Chr08 | 18957817 |
| Chr09 | 13499373 |
| ChrX | 11379864 |
Fig. 3.

Chromosomal synteny between Promethis valgipes (Pval) and Tribolium castaneum (Tcas). The X chromosome is highlighted in red.
Table 2.
Genome assembly statistics for Promethis valgipes.
| Characteristics | P. valgipes |
|---|---|
| Genome assembly | |
| Genome Size (Mb) | 213.68 |
| Number of scaffolds | 19 |
| Number of chromosomes | 10 |
| Scaffold N50 length (Mb) | 21.50 |
| Contig N50 length (Mb) | 17.10 |
| GC (%) | 36.97 |
| BUSCO completeness (%) | 99.7% |
| S | 99.3% |
| D | 0.4% |
| F | 0.1% |
| M | 0.2% |
| Mapping ratio (%) | |
| Illumina | 90.01% |
| HIFI | 99.99% |
| RNA-Seq | 92.93% |
C: complete BUSCOs; S: Complete and single-copy BUSCOs; D: complete and duplicated BUSCOs; F: fragmented BUSCOs; M: missing BUSCOs.
Fig. 2.

Chromosome-scale heatmap showing Hi-C contact frequencies across the Promethis valgipes genome assembly. Blue lines indicate superscaffolds, and both the X- and Y-axes represent cumulative scaffold lengths in megabases (Mb).
Fig. 4.

A circular plot summarizes the genomic landscape of Promethis valgipes. From outer to inner rings, it displays chromosome length (physical scale), GC content, gene density, and the distribution of major repetitive elements, including transposable elements (DNA transposons, SINEs, LINEs, and LTRs) and simple repeats.
Genome annotation
To characterize repetitive elements in the P. valgipes genome, de novo repeat annotation was performed using RepeatModeler v2.0.433 with the “-LTRStruct” pipeline to improve LTR retrotransposon detection. A custom repeat library was then constructed by integrating the de novo library with RepBase-2023090934 and Dfam v3.535. RepeatMasker v4.1.236 was subsequently used to identify and mask repetitive elements using this combined database. Approximately 89.19 Mb (41.74%) of the genome was identified as repetitive sequences. This composition included 62.07 Mb (29.05%) of unclassified repeats, 15.46 Mb (7.22%) of DNA transposons, 6.48 Mb (3.02%) of long interspersed nuclear elements (LINEs), 3.69 Mb (1.71%) of long terminal repeats (LTRs), 0.066 Mb (0.03%) of short interspersed nuclear elements (SINEs), 0.95 Mb (0.44%) of simple repeats, and 0.58 Mb (0.27%) from other categories (Table 4).
Table 4.
Genome assembly and annotation statistics of Promethis valgipes.
| Characteristics | P. valgipes |
|---|---|
| Genome annotation | |
| Protein-coding genes | |
| Number | 13544 |
| Mean gene length (bp) | 4,484.4 |
| BUSCO completeness (%) | 97.4 |
| Repetitive elements | |
| Size (Mb) | 89.19 (41.74%) |
| DNA transposons (Mb) | 15.46 (7.22%) |
| LINEs (Mb) | 6.48 (3.02%) |
| LTRs (Mb) | 3.69 (1.71%) |
| SINEs (Mb) | 0.066 (0.03%) |
| Unclassified (Mb) | 62.07 (29.05%) |
| Simple repeats (Mb) | 0.95 (0.44%) |
| Other repeats (Mb) | 0.58 (0.27%) |
| ncRNA | |
| Number of ncRNA | 456 |
| tRNA | 295 |
| rRNA | 11 |
| miRNA | 60 |
| snRNA | 49 |
| Histone3 | 24 |
| Other ncRNA | 17 |
| Function annotation | |
| Number of genes matching Uniprot records | 13179 |
| Number of genes with InterProScan annotations | 11684 |
| Number of genes with eggNOG annotations | 12,424 |
| Number of genes with Enzyme Codes (EC) from eggNOG annotations | 3054 |
| Number of genes with COG Functional Categories combining InterProScan and eggNOG results | 11688 |
| Number of genes with GO items combining InterProScan and eggNOG results | 10501 |
| Number of genes with KEGG pathways items combining InterProScan and eggNOG results | 5,189 |
For non-coding RNA (ncRNA) annotation, Infernal v1.1.237 was used with the Rfam v14.1038 database, and tRNAs were predicted using tRNAscan-SE v2.0.939. In total, 456 ncRNAs were identified, including 24 histone, 49 small nuclear RNAs (snRNAs), 60 microRNAs (miRNAs), 295 transfer RNAs (tRNAs), 11 ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs), and 17 other ncRNAs (Table 4).
Protein-coding genes in P. valgipes were annotated using MAKER v3.01.040, integrating homology, ab initio predictions, and transcriptomic alignments to generate high-confidence gene models. Gene-finding models were trained and optimized using combined transcriptomic and protein homology evidence. RNA-seq reads were mapped to the genome using HISAT2 v2.2.141, and the alignments were assembled into transcripts with StringTie v2.1.642. Ab initio gene predictions were generated with BRAKER v2.1.643, integrating GeneMark-ES/ET/EP v4.68_lic44 and AUGUSTUS v3.4.045. Models were automatically trained using transcriptome alignments and conserved proteins from OrthoDB v1146. Protein homology-based gene prediction was then performed with GeMoMa v1.947, employing protein sequences from five insect species: D. melanogaster48 (GCF_000001215.4), A. mellifera49 (GCF_003254395.2), B. mori50 (GCF_030269925.2), T. molitor51 (GCF_963966145.1), and T. castaneum12 (GCF_031307605.1) (Table 5). Gene prediction for the P. valgipes genome identified 13544 protein-coding genes, with an average length of 4484.4 bp. Each gene contained an average of 5.6 exons, 4.5 introns, and 5.5 CDSs, with mean exon, intron, and CDS lengths of 324.3 bp, 660.6 bp, and 293.3 bp, respectively (Table 4). Gene completeness was assessed using BUSCO, which identified 97.4% complete BUSCOs, including 1,331 single-copy and 9 duplicated orthologs, along with 0.4% fragmented (6 genes) and 2.2% missing (30 genes).
Table 5.
Species taxonomic information and accession code of all samples used in this study.
| Species | Order | Family | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tribolium castaneum | Coleoptera | Tenebrionidae | NCBI (GCA_031307605.1) |
| Tenebrio molitor | Coleoptera | Tenebrionidae | NCBI (GCA_963966145.1) |
| Apis mellifera | Hymenoptera | Apidae | NCBI (GCA_003254395.2) |
| Bombyx mori | Lepidoptera | Bombycidae | NCBI (GCA_030269925.2) |
| Drosophila melanogaster | Diptera | Drosophilidae | NCBI (GCA_000001215.4) |
Functional annotation of the predicted proteins was performed using multiple complementary approaches. Homology searches against the UniProtKB database were conducted with DIAMOND v2.0.11.152, and Gene Ontology (GO) terms as well as KEGG/Reactome pathway assignments were obtained using eggNOG-mapper v2.0.153. Protein domain annotation was performed using InterProScan v5.53-87.054, integrating five curated databases: Pfam55, SMART56, SUPERFAMILY57, Gene3D58, and CDD59. Results from all annotation tools were then integrated to generate a comprehensive functional annotation dataset for the predicted genes of P. valgipes. Functional annotation of P. valgipes identified 11,684 genes with InterProScan annotations and 12,424 genes annotated in eggNOG. In addition, 13,179 genes were matched to UniProt entries, 10,501 were assigned Gene Ontology (GO) terms, 5,189 were mapped to KEGG pathways, 3,054 were associated with Enzyme Commission (EC) numbers, and 11,688 were classified into COG categories. Genome feature distributions, including repeat elements, gene density, and GC content, were visualized across pseudochromosomes using TBtools32.
Data Records
The raw sequencing data and genome assembly of Promethis valgipes are publicly available through the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The sequencing datasets, including Hi-C (SRR3549348760), transcriptome (SRR3549348861), Illumina short reads (SRR3549348962), and PacBio HiFi long reads (SRR3549349063), are publicly available under their respective accession numbers. The final genome assembly has been deposited in NCBI under accession number GCA_054205895.164. Genome annotation files, including repeat annotations, gene structure predictions, and functional annotations, are available on Figshare65.
Technical Validation
The quality of the P. valgipes genome assembly was evaluated using two complementary approaches. Genome completeness was assessed using BUSCO v5.0.466 in genome mode against the Insecta gene set (insecta_odb10, n = 1,367). The initial Hifiasm assembly achieved a BUSCO completeness of 99.8% (S: 93.9%, D: 5.9%), with only 0.1% fragmented and 0.1% missing BUSCOs. After removal of redundant haplotigs using Purge_Dups, the BUSCO completeness remained at 99.8%, with a substantial reduction in duplicated BUSCOs (S: 99.4%, D: 0.4%), while fragmented and missing BUSCOs accounted for 0.0% and 0.2%, respectively. The marked decrease in duplicated BUSCOs from 5.9% to 0.4% indicates that Purge_Dups effectively removed redundant haplotig sequences while preserving genuine duplicated regions and essential gene content. The k-mer spectrum analyses before and after haplotig removal (Fig. 5a and b) further support the effectiveness of the purging process, demonstrating reduced assembly redundancy without compromising genome completeness. The final chromosome-level assembly achieved a BUSCO completeness of 99.7%, including 99.3% single-copy, 0.4% duplicated, 0.1% fragmented, and 0.2% missing BUSCOs. Assembly accuracy was evaluated using Minimap2 v2.2367 and SAMtools v1.2268 to map PacBio HiFi, Illumina, and RNA-seq reads to the final assembly. The resulting mapping rates were 99.99%, 90.01%, and 92.93%, respectively. To evaluate the quality of the assembly, Merqury v1.369 was used to identify potential errors through efficient k-mer set operations and QV score calculation. The k-mer completeness of the P. valgipes genome was 96.86%, and the QV score was 45.39. Together, these results confirm a highly complete and accurate genome assembly for P. valgipes.
Fig. 5.

K-mer spectrum analysis of the Promethis valgipes genome assembly before and after haplotig removal. (a) Initial assembly; (b) Purge_Dups-processed assembly.
Ethics statement
This research involved an invertebrate insect species and did not include vertebrate animals. According to the relevant institutional and national regulations, ethical approval is not required for studies involving insects. All procedures were conducted in accordance with accepted ethical standards for invertebrate research.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Henan (Grant No. 262300422166), and Nanhu Scholars Program for Young Scholars of XYNU.
Author contributions
Jin.J. and Zhu.W. contributed to the research design. Ye.M. and Qiao.J. collected the samples. Jin.J. and Zhu.W. analyzed the data. Jin.J. and Zhu.W. wrote the draft manuscript and revised the manuscript. All co-authors contributed to this manuscript and approved it.
Code availability
No specific script was used in this work. All commands and pipelines used in data processing were executed according to the manual and protocols of the corresponding bioinformatic software.
Data availability
This dataset is original and previously unpublished. The authors declare no competing interests. Raw sequencing reads and the assembled genome for Promethis valgipes are available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession PRJNA1308995. Annotation files, including repeat elements, gene models, and functional predictions, are publicly available on Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31294198.v3).
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
These authors contributed equally: Jianfeng Jin, Wenji Zhu.
References
- 1.Gunter, N. L. et al. Towards a phylogeny of the Tenebrionoidea (Coleoptera). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.79, 305–312 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bouchard, P., Lawrence, J., Davies, A. & Newton, A. F. Synoptic classification of the world Tenebrionidae [Insecta: Coleoptera] with a review of family-group names. Ann. Zool.55, 499–530 (2005). [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bouchard, P. et al. Review of genus-group names in the family Tenebrionidae (Insecta, Coleoptera). ZooKeys1050, 1–633 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Shields, V. D. C., Thomas, H. & Kristensen, N. P. Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies, Volume 2: Morphology, Physiology, and Development Handbook of Zoology: A Natural History of the Phyla of the Animal Kingdom Volume IV Arthropoda: Insecta, Part 36. Ann Entomol Soc Am5, 988–989 (2006). [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cheli, G. H., Bosco, T. & Flores, G. E. The role of Nyctelia dorsata Fairmaire, 1905 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on litter fragmentation processes and soil biogeochemical cycles in arid patagonia. Ann. Zool.72, 129134 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ra, M., Marcin, J. K. & Iwan, D. Fossoriality in desert-adapted tenebrionid (Coleoptera) larvae. Sci. Rep.12, 13233 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Throne, J. E., Hallman, G. J., Johnson, J. A. & Follett, P. A. Post-harvest entomology research in the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service. Pest Manag. Sci.59, 619–628 (2003). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Dossey, A. Insects as Sustainable Food Ingredients: Production, Processing and Food Applications. (2016).
- 9.Kundungal, H., Synshiang, K. & Devipriya, S. P. Biodegradation of polystyrene wastes by a newly reported honey bee pest Uloma sp. larvae: An insight to the ability of polystyrene-fed larvae to complete its life cycle. Environ. Chall.4, 100083 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 10.Buckman, K. A., Campbell, J. F. & Subramanyam, B. Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) associated with rice mills: fumigation efficacy and population rebound. J Econ Entomol106, 499–512 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Tribolium Genome Sequencing Consortium. The genome of the model beetle and pest Tribolium castaneum. Nature452, 949–955 (2008). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Herndon, N. et al. Enhanced genome assembly and a new official gene set for Tribolium castaneum. BMC Genomics21, 47 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Mann, D., Crowley, L. M. & Merino Recalde, N. The genome sequence of the yellow mealworm beetle, Tenebrio molitor Linnaeus, 1758. Wellcome Open Res12, 459 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Xiao, H. et al. A chromosome-scale genome assembly of the peanut beetle, Ulomoides dermestoides (Coleptera: Tenebrionidae). Sci Data11, 1148 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Telnov, D., Nikolaeva, S. & Barclay, M. V. L. The genome sequence of the comb-clawed beetle, Prionychus ater (Fabricius, 1775) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Wellcome Open Res10, 483 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Orledge, G. M. & Crowley, L. M. The genome sequence of Eledona agricola (Herbst, 1783) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Wellcome Open Res10, 501 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sivell, O., Levey, B. & Barclay, M. V. L. The genome sequence of a darkling beetle, Lagria hirta (Linnaeus, 1758). Wellcome Open Res8, 14 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Booth, R. The genome sequence of a darkling beetle, Diaperis boleti (Linnaeus, 1758). Wellcome Open Res9, 568 (2024). [Google Scholar]
- 19.Booth, R. The genome sequence of the darkling beetle, Phaleria cadaverina (Fabricius, 1792) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Wellcome Open Res11, 269 (2026). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hua, H. R., Ren, G. D. & Yin, J. The morphology supplement of Promethis valgipes valgipes from scanning electron microscopy. Chin Bull Entomol43, 22 (2006). [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hossen, R. et al. An optimized CTAB method for genomic DNA extraction from green seaweeds (Ulvophyceae). Appl Plant Sci13, e11625 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Belton, J. M. et al. Hi-C: A comprehensive technique to capture the conformation of genomes. Methods58, 268–276 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bushnell, B. BBtools. Available online: https://sourceforge.net/projects/bbmap/ (accessed on 1 October 2022) (2014).
- 24.Ranallo-Benavidez, T. R., Jaron, K. S. & Schatz, M. C. GenomeScope 2.0 and Smudgeplot for reference-free profiling of polyploid genomes. Nat Commun11, 1432 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Cheng, H., Concepcion, G. T., Feng, X., Zhang, H. & Li, H. Haplotype-resolved de novo assembly using phased assembly graphs with hifiasm. Nat Methods18, 170–175 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Guan, D. et al. Identifying and removing haplotypic duplication in primary genome assemblies. Bioinformatics36, 2896–2898 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Durand, N. C. et al. Juicer Provides a One-Click System for Analyzing Loop-Resolution Hi-C Experiments. Cell Syst3, 95–98 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Dudchenko, O. et al. De novo assembly of the Aedes aegypti genome using Hi-C yields chromosome-length scaffolds. Science356, 92–95 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Steinegger, M. & Soding, J. MMseqs 2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysisof massive datasets. Nat. Biotechnol.35, 1026–1028 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol.215, 403–410 (1990). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wang, Y. et al. MCScanX: A toolkit for detection and evolutionary analysis of gene synteny and collinearity. Nucleic Acids Res40, e49 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Chen, C. et al. TBtools: An Integrative Toolkit Developed for Interactive Analyses of Big Biological Data. Mol. Plant.13, 1194–1202 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Flynn, J. M. et al. RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA117, 9451–9457 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Bao, W., Kojima, K. K. & Kohany, O. Repbase Update, a database of repetitive elements in eukaryotic genomes. Mob. Dna.6, 11 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hubley, R. et al. The Dfam database of repetitive DNA families. Nucleic Acids Res44, D81–D89 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Smit, A. F. A., Hubley, R. & Green, P. RepeatMasker Open-4.0. Available online: http://www.repeatmasker.org (accessed on 1 October 2022) (2013–2015).
- 37.Nawrocki, E. P. & Eddy, S. R. Infernal 1.1: 100-fold faster RNA homology searches. Bioinformatics29, 2933–2935 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Griffiths-Jones, S. et al. Rfam: annotating noncoding RNAs in complete genomes. Nucleic Acids Res33, D121–D124 (2005). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Chan, P. P. & Lowe, T. M. TRNAscan-SE: Searching for tRNA genes in genomic sequences. Methods Mol Biol1962, 1–14 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Holt, C. & Yandell, M. MAKER2: An annotation pipeline and genome-database management tool for second-generation genome projects. BMC Bioinform12, 491 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Kim, D., Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. HISAT: A fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nat. Methods.12, 357–360 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Kovaka, S. et al. Transcriptome assembly from long-read RNA-seq alignments with StringTie2. Genome Biol20, 278 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Bruna, T., Hoff, K. J., Lomsadze, A., Stanke, M. & Borodovsky, M. BRAKER2: Automatic eukaryotic genome annotation with GeneMark-EP+ and AUGUSTUS supported by a protein database. Nar Genom. Bioinform.3, lqaa108 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Bruna, T., Lomsadze, A. & Borodovsky, M. GeneMark-EP: Eukaryotic gene prediction with self-training in the space of genes and proteins. Nar Genom. Bioinform.2, lqaa26 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Stanke, M., Steinkamp, R., Waack, S. & Morgenstern, B. AUGUSTUS: A web server for gene finding in eukaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res32, W309–W312 (2004). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Kriventseva, E. V. et al. OrthoDB v10: Sampling the diversity of animal, plant, fungal, protist, bacterial and viral genomes for evolutionary and functional annotations of orthologs. Nucleic Acids Res47, D807–D811 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Keilwagen, J., Hartung, F., Paulini, M., Twardziok, S. O. & Grau, J. Combining RNA-seq data and homology-based gene prediction for plants, animals and fungi. BMC Bioinform19, 189 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Hoskins, R. A. et al. The Release 6 reference sequence of the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Genome Res25, 445–458 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Gibbs, R. A. et al. Insights into social insects from the genome of the honeybee Apis mellifera. Nature443, 931–949 (2006). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Yamamoto, K. & Shimada, T. High-quality genome assembly of the silkworm, Bombyx mori. Insect Biochem Mol Biol107, 53–62 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Kaur, S., Stinson, S. A. & Dicenzo, G. C. Whole genome assemblies of Zophobas morio and Tenebrio molitor. G3-genes. Genom Genet13, 6 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods.12, 59–60 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Huerta-Cepas, J. et al. Fast Genome-Wide Functional Annotation through Orthology Assignment by eggNOG-Mapper. Mol. Biol. Evol.34, 2115–2122 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Finn, R. D. et al. InterPro in 2017—Beyond protein family and domain annotations. Nucleic Acids Res45, D190–D199 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.El-Gebali, S. et al. The Pfam protein families database in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res47, D427–D432 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Letunic, I. & Bork, P. 20 years of the SMART protein domain annotation resource. Nucleic Acids Res46, D493–D496 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Wilson, D. et al. SUPERFAMILY—Sophisticated comparative genomics, data mining, visualization and phylogeny. Nucleic Acids Res37, D380–D386 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Lewis, T. E. et al. Gene3D: Extensive Prediction of Globular Domains in Proteins. Nucleic Acids Res46, D1282 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Marchler-Bauer, A. et al. CDD/SPARCLE: Functional classification of proteins via subfamily domain architectures. Nucleic Acids Res45, D200–D203 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRR35493487 (2026).
- 61.NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRR35493488 (2026).
- 62.NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRR35493489 (2026).
- 63.NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRR35493490 (2026).
- 64.NCBI Assemblyhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.gca:GCA_054205895.1 (2025).
- 65.Jin, J. Genome annotation files of Promethis valgipes. figshare. Dataset. 10.6084/m9.figshare.31294198.v3 (2026). [DOI]
- 66.Waterhouse, R. M. et al. BUSCO Applications from Quality Assessments to Gene Prediction and Phylogenomics. Mol. Biol. Evol.35, 543–548 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Li, H. Minimap2: Pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 34 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 68.Dudchenko, O. et al. Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. GigaScience10(2), giab008 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Rhie, A., Walenz, P. B., Koren, S. & Philippy, M. A. Merqury: reference-free quality, completeness, and phasing assessment for genome assemblies. Genome Biol21, 245 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Citations
- NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRR35493487 (2026).
- NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRR35493488 (2026).
- NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRR35493489 (2026).
- NCBI Sequence Read Archivehttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRR35493490 (2026).
- NCBI Assemblyhttps://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.gca:GCA_054205895.1 (2025).
Data Availability Statement
No specific script was used in this work. All commands and pipelines used in data processing were executed according to the manual and protocols of the corresponding bioinformatic software.
This dataset is original and previously unpublished. The authors declare no competing interests. Raw sequencing reads and the assembled genome for Promethis valgipes are available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession PRJNA1308995. Annotation files, including repeat elements, gene models, and functional predictions, are publicly available on Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31294198.v3).
