Skip to main content
. 2019 Oct 8;9:14450. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50978-4

Table 1.

Comparison of genome assembly and completeness assessment results between the previous genome (Tuna_128) and new genome assembled in this study (Tuna_2) using CEGMA and BUSCO.

Assembly Statistics Tuna_1 Tuna_2
Contig statistics
Number of contigs 135,841 1,248
Total contig size (bp) 684,478,122 786,014,188
Contig N50 size (bp) 8,173 3,075,225
Largest contig (bp) 79,059 14,489,242
Scaffold statistics
Number of scaffolds 16,801 444
Total scaffold size (bp) 740,348,846 786,596,543
Scaffold N50 size (bp) 136,950 7,922,002
Largest scaffold size (bp) 1,021,118 19,788,065
GC content (%) 40 40
Number of gaps 119,041 804
Completeness Assessment Results Using CEGMA
Total number of core genes queried 233 233
Number of core genes detected
Complete 176 (75.54%) 222 (95.28%)
Complete + Partial 222 (95.28%) 225 (96.57%)
Number of missing core genes 11 (4.72%) 8 (3.43%)
Average number of orthologs per core genes 1.38 1.03
% of detected core genes that have more than 1 ortholog 26.14 3.15
Completeness Assessment Results using BUSCO
Total BUSCO groups searched 4584 4584
Complete BUSCOs 4021 (87.7%) 4044 (88.2%)
Complete and single-copy BUSCOs 3933 (85.8%) 3848 (83.9%)
Complete and duplicated BUSCOs 88 (1.9%) 196 (4.3%)
Fragmented BUSCOs 337 (7.4%) 222 (4.8%)
Missing BUSCOs 226 (4.9%) 318 (7.0%)