Skip to main content
NCBI home page
G3: Genes | Genomes | Genetics logoLink to G3: Genes | Genomes | Genetics
. 2021 May 28;11(8):jkab180. doi: 10.1093/g3journal/jkab180

De novo genome assembly of the land snail Candidula unifasciata (Mollusca: Gastropoda)

Luis J Chueca 1,2,✉, Tilman Schell 1, Markus Pfenninger 3,4
PMCID: PMC8496239  PMID: 34849805

Abstract

Among all molluscs, land snails are a scientifically and economically interesting group comprising edible species, alien species and agricultural pests. Yet, despite their high diversity, the number of genome drafts publicly available is still scarce. Here, we present the draft genome assembly of the land snail Candidula unifasciata, a widely distributed species along central Europe, belonging to the Geomitridae family, a highly diversified taxon in the Western-Palearctic region. We performed whole genome sequencing, assembly and annotation of an adult specimen based on PacBio and Oxford Nanopore long read sequences as well as Illumina data. A genome draft of about 1.29 Gb was generated with a N50 length of 246 kb. More than 60% of the assembled genome was identified as repetitive elements. In total, 22,464 protein-coding genes were identified in the genome, of which 62.27% were functionally annotated. This is the first assembled and annotated genome for a geometrid snail and will serve as reference for further evolutionary, genomic and population genetic studies of this important and interesting group.

Keywords: annotation, de novo assembly, Geomitridae, land snails, long reads, molluscs, repeats

Introduction

Gastropods are the largest group among molluscs, representing almost 80% of the species in this second largest phylum. Within gastropods, snails occupy arguably the widest range of habitats of all metazoan taxa, ranging from deep sea vents to the alpine region and from deserts to polar regions. Land snail diversity is estimated around to 35,000 species (Solem 1984). Due to their low dispersal abilities, land snails have been employed long since in many evolutionary and population genetics studies (Cain and Sheppard 1954; Cameron 1992; Pfenninger et al. 1996; Chueca et al. 2017; Haponski et al. 2017). While these studies are mainly based on few loci, transcriptomes or mitochondrial genomes (Kang et al. 2016; Razkin et al. 2016; Romero et al. 2016; Korábek et al. 2019), only three whole nuclear genomes of land snails species are available so far, Achatina fulica (Guo et al. 2019), Achatina immaculata (Liu et al. 2021) and Cepaea nemoralis (Saenko et al. 2021).

The Geomitridae are one of the most diverse families of molluscs in the Western-Palearctic region. The family is composed of small to medium-sized species, characterized by presenting several (reproductive) adaptations to xeric habitats (Giusti and Manganelli 1987). Candidula unifasciata (NCBI: txid100452) is a small land snail species (5–10 mm) widely distributed along western Europe, from southern France and Italy to central and northern Europe (Figure 1). C. unifasciata inhabits dry meadows and open lowlands with rocks, being also present in gardens and vineyards. A recent molecular revision of Candidula (Chueca et al. 2018) revealed the polyphyly of the genus, and split the species that composed it into six genera, questioning the traditional anatomical classification. Previous work focused on the speciation (Pfenninger and Magnin 2001; Pfenninger et al. 2003) and climate-driven evolution (Pfenninger and Posada 2002; Pfenninger et al. 2007) of the genus, however, in depth analyses were hampered by the lack of genomic markers. Although, there are many taxonomical, phylogeographical, and evolutionary studies concerning Geomitridae species (Pfenninger and Magnin 2001; Sauer and Hausdorf 2010; Brozzo et al. 2020), the lack of reference genomes makes it difficult to investigate deeper biological and evolutionary questions about geomitrids and other land snails species. Here, we present the annotated draft genome of C. unifasciata that will be a valuable resource for future genomic research of this important taxonomic group (Chueca et al. 2021).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

(A) Picture of an adult specimen of C. unifasciata, copyright © Luis J. Chueca. (B) Estimated extent of occurrence of C. unifasciata in Europe.

Materials and methods

Sample collection, library construction, and sequencing

Several living individuals of C. unifasciata were collected from Winterscheid, Gilserberg, Gemany (50.93° N, 9.04° E). Genomic DNA was extracted independently from two specimens using the phenol/chloroform method and quality was checked by gel electrophoresis and NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (LabTech, USA). Genomic DNA from the first specimen (size distribution = 20 kb) was employed for Illumina and PacBio sequencing. A total of 5.6 µg of DNA was sent to Novogene (UK) for library preparation and sequencing. Then, a 300 base pair (bp) insert DNA libraries was generated using NEBNext® DNA Library Prep Kit and sequenced on 3 lanes of Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform (150 bp paired-end [PE] reads). Quality of raw Illumina sequences was checked with FastQC (Andrews 2010). Low quality bases and adapter sequences were subsequently trimmed by Trimmomatic v0.39 (Bolger et al. 2014). For PacBio sequencing, a DNA library was prepared from 5 µg of DNA using the SMRTbell template prep kit v.1.0. Sequencing was carried out on 10 single-molecule real-time sequencing (SMRT) cells on an RSI instrument using P6-C4 chemistry.

To obtain Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) long reads, we ran two flow cells on a MinION portable sequencer. Total genomic DNA from a second specimen (size distribution = 30 kb) was used for library preparation with the Ligation Sequencing kit (SQK-LSK109) from ONT, using the manufacturer’s protocols. Base calling of the reads from the two MinION flow cells was performed with guppy v4.0.11 (https://github.com/nanoporetech/pyguppyclient, last accessed on 07-06-2021), under default settings. Afterwards, ONT reads quality was checked with Nanoplot v1.28.1 (https://github.com/wdecoster/NanoPlot, last accessed on 07-06-2021) and reads shorter than 1000 bases and mean quality below seven were discarded by running Nanofilt v2.6.0 (https://github.com/wdecoster/nanofilt, last accessed on 07-06-2021).

Two living specimens, one adult and one juvenile, were kept in captivity for 3 days to purge the gut. After being purged, the whole bodies of both specimens were homogenized together into small pieces using steel balls and a Retsch Mill. Then, RNA was extracted following an standard Trizol extraction. The integrity of total RNA extracted was assessed on an Agilent 4200 TapeStation (Agilent, USA), after which, approximately 1 µg of the total RNA was processed using the Universal Plus mRNA-seq library preparation kit (NuGEN, Redwood City, CA, USA). Finally, the 300-bp insert size library was sequenced on a Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform.

Genome size estimation

Genome size was estimated following a flow cytometry protocol with propidium iodide-stained nuclei described in (Hare and Johnston 2012). Foot tissue of one fresh adult sample of C. unifasciata and neural tissue of the internal reference standard Acheta domesticus (female, 1 C = 2 Gb) was mixed and chopped with a razor blade in a petri dish containing 2 ml of ice-cold Galbraith buffer. The suspension was filtered through a 42-μm nylon mesh and stained with the intercalating fluorochrome propidium iodide (PI, Thermo Fisher Scientific) and treated with RNase II A (Sigma-Aldrich), each with a final concentration of 25 μg/ml. The mean red PI fluorescence signal of stained nuclei was quantified using a Beckman-Coulter CytoFLEX flow cytometer with a solid-state laser emitting at 488 nm. Fluorescence intensities of 5000 nuclei per sample were recorded. We used the software CytExpert 2.3 for histogram analyses. The total quantity of DNA in the sample was calculated as the ratio of the mean red fluorescence signal of the 2 C peak of the stained nuclei of the C. unifasciata sample divided by the mean fluorescence signal of the 2 C peak of the reference standard times the 1 C amount of DNA in the standard reference. Four replicates were measured to minimize possible random instrumental errors. Furthermore, we estimated the genome size by coverage from mapping reads used for genome assembly back to the assembly itself using backmap v0.3 (https://github.com/schellt/backmap; Schell et al. 2017, last accessed on 07-06-2021). In brief, the method divides the number of mapped nucleotides by the mode of the coverage distribution. By doing so, the length of collapsed regions with many fold increased coverage is taken into account.

Genome assembly workflow

Several de novo genome assemblies were tested under different methods (see Supplementary Table S1). The pipeline, which showed the best genome, was selected to continue further analyses. The draft genome was constructed from PacBio long reads using wtdbg2 v2.5 (Ruan and Li 2020), followed by three polishing rounds of Racon 1.4.3 (Vaser et al. 2017) and three polishing rounds of Pilon 1.23 (Walker et al. 2014). After that, Illumina and PacBio reads were aligned to the assembly using backmap.pl v0.3 to evaluate coverage distribution. Then, Purge Haplotigs (Roach et al. 2018) was employed, under default parameters and cutoff values of 15, 72, and 160 to identify and remove redundant contigs.

Scaffolding and gap closing

To further improve the assembly, we applied two rounds of scaffolding and gap closing to the selected genome assembly. The genome was first scaffolded with the PacBio and ONT reads by LINKS v1.8.7 (Warren et al. 2015) and then with RNA reads by Rascaf v1.0.2 (Song et al. 2016). After each scaffolding step Long-Read Gapcloser v1.0 (Xu et al. 2019) was run once, followed by three rounds of polishing former gap regions using Racon v1.4.3. BlobTools v.1.0 (Kumar et al. 2013; Laetsch and Blaxter 2017) was employed to screen genome assembly for potential contamination by evaluating coverage, GC content and sequence similarity against the NCBI nt database of each sequence. The resulting assembly was compared in terms of contiguity using Quast v5.0.2 (Gurevich et al. 2013), and evaluated for completeness by BUSCO v3.0.2 (Simão et al. 2015) against metazoa_odb9 data set.

Transcriptome assembly

RNA reads were checked for quality and trimmed, as was explained above. The transcriptome was assembled using Trinity v2.9.1 (Haas et al. 2013). Then, the transcriptome assembly was evaluated for completeness by BUSCO v3.0.2 against the metazoa_odb9 data set. Moreover, the clean RNA-seq reads from different specimens were aligned against the draft assembly by HISAT2 v2.1.0 (Kim et al. 2015).

Repeat annotation

RepeatModeler v2.0 (Smit and Hubley 2008) was run to construct a de novo repeat library from the genome assembly. The resulting repeat library was employed by RepeatMasker v4.1.0 (http://www.repeatmasker.org/, last accessed on 07-06-2021) to annotate and mask the genome assembly.

Gene prediction and functional annotation

Genes were predicted by using different methods. First, genes models were predicted ab initio based on SNAP v. 2006-07-28 (Korf 2004) and the candidate coding regions within the assembled transcript were identified with TransDecoder v5.5.0 (https://github.com/TransDecoder/, last accessed on 07-06-2021). Second, we used homology-based gene predictions by aligning protein sequences from SwissProt (2020-04) to the C. unifasciata masked genome with EXONERATE v2.2.0 (Slater and Birney 2005) and by running GeMoMa v1.7.1 (Keilwagen et al. 2016, 2018) taking five gastropod species as reference organisms. The selected species were Pomacea canaliculata [GCF_003073045.1; (Liu et al. 2018)], Aplysia californica (GCF_000002075.1), Elysia chlorotica [GCA_003991915.1; (Cai et al. 2019)], Radix auricularia [GCA_002072015.1; (Schell et al. 2017)], and Chrysomallon squamiferum [GCA_012295275.1; (Sun et al. 2020)]. First, from the mapped RNA-seq reads, introns were extracted and filtered by the GeMoMa modules ERE and DenoiseIntrons. Then, we ran independently the module GeMoMa pipeline for each reference species using mmseqs2 v5877873 (Steinegger and Söding 2017, 2018) and including the mapping of species own RNA-seq data. The five gene annotations were then combined into a final annotation file by using the GeMoMa modules GAF and AnnotationFinalizer. Finally, we aligned C. unifasciata transcripts against the masked genome using PASA v2.4.1 (Campbell et al. 2006) as implemented in autoAug.pl from Augustus v3.3.3 (Stanke et al. 2004).

Gene prediction data from each method were combined using EVidenceMolder v1.1.1 (Haas et al. 2008) to obtain a consensus gene set for the C. unifasciata genome. Gene models from GeMoMa and SNAP were converted to EVM compatible gff3 files using EVM’s included scripts and combined with CDS identified by TransDecoder into a gene predictions file. After that, EVM was run including gene model predictions, protein and transcript alignments and repeat regions to produce a reliable consensus gene set (Supplementary Table S2).

Predicted genes were functionally annotated by BLAST search against the Swiss-Prot database with an e-value cutoff of 10-6. InterProScan v5.39.77 (Quevillon et al. 2005) was used to predict motifs and domains, as well as Gene ontology (GO) terms.

Data availability

All raw data generated for this study (Illumina, PacBio, MinION, and RNA-seq reads) are available at the European Nucleotide Archive database (ENA) under the Project number: PRJEB41346. The final genome assembly and annotation can be found under the accession number GCA_905116865.

The execution of this work involved using many software tools which are listed in Table 1. Supplementary File S1 contains BUSCO results. Supplementary File S2 contains de novo library of repeats generated by RepeatModeler. Supplementary File S3 contains C. unifasciata repeats. Supplementary File S4 contains sequences of protein-coding genes predicted in the C. unifasciata genome. Supplementary File S5 contains proteins predicted in the C. unifasciata genome. Supplementary File S6 contains genome annotation. Supplementary Table S1 contains a comparison between draft genomes assemblies for C. unifasciata obtained by different tools. Supplementary Table S2 contains weights values of evidences for EVM analysis. Supplementary Table S3 contains RepeatMasker results. Supplementary Material is available at figshare: https://doi.org/10.25387/g3.14237828.

Table 2.

Genome assembly and annotation statistics for C. unifasciata and comparison with other land snails genomes

Statistic C. unifasciata C. nemoralis Achatina fulica
Total sequence length 1,286,461,591 3,490,924,950 1,850,322,141
No. of contigs 11,756 28,698 8,122
Contig N50 246,413 330,079 721,038
Contig L50 1,602 3,071 697
Contig NG50 205,769 337,823 584,695
Contig LG50 2,034 2,964 903
No. of scaffolds 8,586 28,537 921
scaffolds > 10000 bp 7,180 26,580 189
Scaffold N50 246,413 333,110 59,589,303
Scaffold L50 940 3,035 13
Scaffold NG50 341,667 341,704 58,752,149
Scaffold LG50 1,188 2,930 15
GC content (%) 40.69 41.25 38.77
BUSCO
Genome
 complete 92.4% (S : 85.3%; D: 7.1%) 89.0% (S : 73.9%; D: 15.1%) 91.5% (S : 84.6%; D: 6.9%)
 fragmented 1.6% 3.4% 2.5%
 missing 6.0% 7.6% 6.0%
Annotation
 complete 94.5%(S : 86.0%; D : 8.5%) 71.7%(S : 59.5%; D : 12.2%) 95.6%(S : 86.8%; D : 8.8%)
 fragmented 2.6% 10.4% 1.9%
 missing 2.9% 17.9% 2.5%
Transcriptome — —
 complete 94.7% (S : 52.6%; D: 42.1%)
 fragmented 3.8%
 missing 1.5%
Open in a new tab

Results and discussion

Genome assembly

The calculated DNA content through flow cytometry experiments was 1.54 Gb. The genome size estimation by back-mapped Illumina read coverage resulted in 1.42 Gb. The estimated heterozygosity by GenomeScope of the specimen employed for genome assembly, based on 21-mers, was around 1.09% (Figure 2A), being in the range of other land snail genomes (Guo et al. 2019; Saenko et al. 2021). We generated sequence data for a total coverage of approximately 120.6X (185.73 Gb), 25.6X (39.43 Gb, N50: 9.9 kb), and 2.1X (3.24 Gb, N50: 16.2 kb) of Illumina, PacBio, and ONT reads respectively. Although we employed HMW-DNA for the ONT sequencing, pores collapsed and started dying very quick, generating less amount of data than expected. After scaffolding with long reads (PacBio and ONT) and RNA data, we produced a draft genome assembly of 1.29 Gb with 8586 scaffolds and a scaffold N50 of 246 kb (Table 2). Contiguity value was also good, with a scaffold NG50 of 341 kb, similar to C. nemoralis genome assembly. Completeness evaluation by BUSCO against the metazoan_odb9 data set showed high values, recovering more than the 92% as complete and less than the 6% as missing genes for both, assembly and annotation, analyses (Table 2, Supplementary File S1). These results were in the range of other recent high quality gastropod genome assemblies (Schell et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2018; Guo et al. 2019; Sun et al. 2020), being slightly better than closest relative assembly of C. nemoralis (Saenko et al. 2021). For genome quality evaluation, we compared the C. unifasciata draft genome generated with other mollusc genomes publicly available. This comparison showed high quality in terms of contig number and scaffold N50 among land snail genomes. The mapping of the Illumina reads against the final genome assembly showed a mapping rate of 98.56%, as well as a removal of most redundant regions (Figure 2B). Finally, BlobTools analysis shows a small fraction of the assembly assigned to phyla other than Mollusca (e.g., Arthropoda, Chordata among others). This is probably due to incompleteness of the nt database—where the taxonomic assignment is based on—and resulting random hits to more or less conserved sequences throughout the different phyla. Therefore, focusing on GC and coverage distribution, no contamination could be identified (Figure 3), indicating the reliability of the data.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

(A) GenomeScope k-mer profile plot for C. unifasciata genome. (B) Coverage histogram for the final assembly based on the Illumina reads.

Table 3.

Repeat statistics

Assembly LINE SINE LTR DNA Unclassified SmRNA Others Total (%)
C. unifasciata 1,253,318 427,509 11,975 298,828 1,334,718 413,197 708,740 61.1
C. nemoralis 2,820,864 342,120 209,476 443,363 4,400,828 444,489 1,267,814 76.4
Open in a new tab

De novo and homology based repeat annotations as reported by RepeatMasker and RepeatModeler for C. unifasciata and comparison with C. nemoralis. Families of repeats included here are long interspersed nuclear elements (LINEs), short interspersed nuclear elements (SINEs), long tandem repeats (LTR), DNA transposons (DNA), unclassified (unknown) repeat families, small RNA repeats (SmRNA), and others (consisting of small, but classified repeat groups). The last column represents the total percentage of base pairs annotated as repeats.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Blob plot showing read coverage, GC content and size of each scaffold. Size of the blobs correspond to size of the scaffold and color corresponds to taxonomic assignment based on a blast search against the nt database.

Genome annotation

We estimated the total repeat content of the C. unifasciata genome assembly around 61.10% (Table 3, Supplementary Table S3, Supplementary Files S2 and S3), values slightly smaller than other land snails genomes (Guo et al. 2019; Saenko et al. 2021). Approximately one third of the assembled genome (33.96%) was identified as Transposable elements (TEs) such as long interspersed nuclear elements (LINEs; 25.03%), short interspersed nuclear elements (SINEs; 4.23%), long tandem repeats (LTR; 0.60%), and DNA transposons (4.10%).

Table 4.

Annotation statistics of the predicted protein-coding genes for C. unifasciata genome

C. unifasciata
Number
Gene 22,464
mRNA 22,464
Exon 147,783
CDS 147,783
Mean
mRNAs/gene 1
CDSs/mRNA 6.58
Median length
Gene 11,931
mRNA 11,931
Exon 129
Intron 2,025
CDS 129
Total space (Mb)
Gene 379,573,459
CDS 26,582,739
Single
CDS mRNA 3,562
InterproScan 21,231 (94.51%)
GO 13,221 (62.27%)
Reactome 5,069 (22.56%)
SwissProt 16,809 (74.83%)
Open in a new tab

We predicted 22,464 protein coding genes in the C. unifasciata genome (Table 4, Supplementary Files S4 and S5) by using a homology-based gene prediction and EVM (Supplementary File S6). Among the identified proteins, 13,221 (62.27%) could be annotated with at least one GO term. Finally, 21,231 proteins (94.51%) were assigned to at least one of the databases used within InterProScan (Table 4). BUSCO and functional annotations results indicated high quality. Total protein-coding genes was in the range of other gastropods annotations (Schell et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2018; Guo et al. 2019), however this number represented only the half of its closest relative C. nemoralis (Saenko et al. 2021). Nevertheless, C. nemoralis genome annotation showed less completeness, with significant numbers of fragmented and missing BUSCO’s. These results could indicate that annotated genes are too fragmented and therefore, the real gene number of C. nemoralis annotation might be similar to other gastropods such as C. unifasciata.

Table 1.

Software employed in this work, their package version and source availability. All url were last accessed on 07-06-2021.

Name Version Url
Flye 2.6 https://github.com/fenderglass/Flye
wtdbg2 2.5 https://github.com/ruanjue/wtdbg2
Canu 1.9 https://github.com/marbl/canu
Racon 1.4.3 https://github.com/isovic/racon
Pilon 1.23 https://github.com/broadinstitute/pilon
Quast 5.0.2 https://github.com/ablab/quast
BUSCO 3.0.2 https://busco.ezlab.org/
BlobTools 1.1.1 https://github.com/DRL/blobtools
LINKS 1.8.7 https://github.com/bcgsc/LINKS
Rascaf 1.0.2 https://github.com/mourisl/Rascaf
Long-Read Gapcloser 1.0 https://github.com/CAFS-bioinformatics/LR_Gapcloser
FastQC 0.11.9 https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/
Trimmomatic 0.39 http://www.usadellab.org/cms/?page=trimmomatic
MultiQC 1.9 https://multiqc.info/
GenomeScope 1.0 http://qb.cshl.edu/genomescope/
Trinity 2.9.1 https://github.com/trinityrnaseq/trinityrnaseq/wiki
GeMoMa 1.6.4 http://www.jstacs.de/index.php/GeMoMa
MMseqs2 5877873 https://github.com/soedinglab/MMseqs2
Augustus 3.3.3 https://github.com/Gaius-Augustus/Augustus
TransDecoder 5.5.0 https://github.com/TransDecoder
SNAP 2006-07-28 —
EXONERATE 2.2.0 https://www.ebi.ac.uk/about/vertebrate-genomics/software/ exonerate-manual
PASA 2.4.1 https://github.com/PASApipeline/PASApipeline
EVidenceMolder 1.1.1 https://evidencemodeler.github.io
guppy 4.0.11 https://github.com/nanoporetech/pyguppyclient
Nanoplot 1.28.1 https://github.com/wdecoster/NanoPlot
Nanofilt 2.6.0 https://github.com/wdecoster/nanofilt
backmap.pl 0.3 https://github.com/schellt/backmap
SAMtools 1.10 https://github.com/samtools/samtools
BWA 0.7.17 https://github.com/lh3/bwa
minimap2 2.17 https://github.com/lh3/minimap2
Qualimap 2.2.1 http://qualimap.conesalab.org/
bedtools 2.28.0 https://bedtools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
Rscript 3.6.3 https://www.r-project.org/
RepeatModeler 2.0 http://www.repeatmasker.org/RepeatModeler/
RepeatMasker 4.1.0 http://www.repeatmasker.org/
HISAT2 2.1.0 http://daehwankimlab.github.io/hisat2/
Open in a new tab

Conclusions

Here, we present a high quality draft assembled and annotated genome of the land snail C. unifasciata. The obtained genome is comparable with other land snail and Gastropoda genomes publicly available. The new genome resource will be reference for further population genetics, evolutionary and genomic studies of this highly world-wide diverse group.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Damian Baranski for help with the DNA isolation, FCM measurements, and library preparations.

M.P. and L.J.C. conceived the idea. M.P. collected the specimens. L.J.C. designed and performed the bioinformatic analyses with support of T.S. L.J.C. prepared the manuscript, and all authors edited and approved the final version.

Funding

This work was funded by LOEWE-Centre for Translational Biodiversity Genomics (LOEWE-TBG). L.J.C. was supported by a Post-doctoral Fellowship awarded by the Department of Education, Universities and Research of the Basque Government (Ref.: POS_2018_1_0012).

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Literature cited

  1. Andrews S. 2010. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/ (Accessed: 2021 June 7).
  2. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B.. 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 30:2114–2120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brozzo A, Harl J, De Mattia W, Teixeira D, Walther F, et al. 2020. Molecular phylogeny and trait evolution of Madeiran land snails: radiation of the Geomitrini (Stylommatophora: Helicoidea: Geomitridae). Cladistics. 36:594–616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cai H, Li Q, Fang X, Li J, Curtis NE, et al. 2019. A draft genome assembly of the solar-powered sea slug Elysia chlorotica. Sci Data. 6:190022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cain AJ, Sheppard PM.. 1954. Natural selection in Cepaea. Genetics. 39:89–116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cameron RAD. 1992. Change and stability in Cepaea populations over 25 years: a case of climatic selection. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 248:181–187. [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell MA, Haas BJ, Hamilton JP, Mount SM, Robin CR.. 2006. Comprehensive analysis of alternative splicing in rice and comparative analyses with Arabidopsis. BMC Genomics. 7:17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chueca LJ, Gómez-Moliner BJ, Forés M, Madeira MJ.. 2017. Biogeography and radiation of the land snail genus Xerocrassa (Geomitridae) in the Balearic Islands. J Biogeogr. 44:760–772. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chueca LJ, Gómez-Moliner BJ, Madeira MJ, Pfenninger M.. 2018. Molecular phylogeny of Candidula (Geomitridae) land snails inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear markers reveals the polyphyly of the genus. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 118:357–368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chueca LJ, Schell T, Pfenninger M.. 2021. Whole-genome re-sequencing data to infer historical demography and speciation processes in land snails: the study of two Candidula sister species. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 376:20200156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Giusti F, Manganelli G.. 1987. Notulae malacologicae, XXXVI. On some Hygromiidae (Gastropoda: Helicoidea) living in Sardinia and in Corsica.(Studies on the Sardinian and Corsican malacofauna VI). Boll Malacol. 23:123–206. [Google Scholar]
  12. Guo Y, Zhang Y, Liu Q, Huang Y, Mao G, et al. 2019. A chromosomal-level genome assembly for the giant African snail Achatina fulica. Gigascience. 8:1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G.. 2013. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 29:1072–1075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Haas BJ, Papanicolaou A, Yassour M, Grabherr M, Blood PD, et al. 2013. De novo transcript sequence reconstruction from RNA-seq using the Trinity platform for reference generation and analysis. Nat Protoc. 8:1494–1512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Haas BJ, Salzberg SL, Zhu W, Pertea M, Allen JE, et al. 2008. Automated eukaryotic gene structure annotation using evidence modeler and the program to assemble spliced alignments. Genome Biol. 9:1–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Haponski AE, Lee T, Ó Foighil D.. 2017. Moorean and Tahitian Partula tree snail survival after a mass extinction: new genomic insights using museum specimens. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 106:151–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hare EE, Johnston JS.. 2012. Chapter 1 of Propidium Iodide-Stained Nuclei. Methods. 772:3–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kang SW, Patnaik BB, Hwang HJ, Park SY, Chung JM, et al. 2016. Transcriptome sequencing and de novo characterization of Korean endemic land snail, Koreanohadra kurodana for functional transcripts and SSR markers. Mol Genet Genomics. 291:1999–2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Keilwagen J, Hartung F, Paulini M, Twardziok SO, Grau J.. 2018. Combining RNA-seq data and homology-based gene prediction for plants, animals and fungi. BMC Bioinformatics. 19:189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Keilwagen J, Wenk M, Erickson JL, Schattat MH, Grau J, et al. 2016. Using intron position conservation for homology-based gene prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 44:e89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim D, Langmead B, Salzberg SL.. 2015. HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nat Methods. 12:357–360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Korábek O, Petrusek A, Rovatsos M.. 2019. The complete mitogenome of Helix pomatia and the basal phylogeny of Helicinae (Gastropoda, Stylommatophora, Helicidae). Zookeys. 827:19–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Korf I. 2004. Gene finding in novel genomes. BMC Bioinformatics. 5:59–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kumar S, Jones M, Koutsovoulos G, Clarke M, Blaxter M.. 2013. Blobology: exploring raw genome data for contaminants, symbionts and parasites using taxon-annotated GC-coverage plots. Front Genet. 4:1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Laetsch DR, Blaxter ML.. 2017. BlobTools: interrogation of genome assemblies [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations. F1000Res. 6:1287. [Google Scholar]
  26. Liu C, Zhang Y, Ren Y, Wang H, Li S, et al. 2018. The genome of the golden apple snail Pomacea canaliculata provides insight into stress tolerance and invasive adaptation. Gigascience. 7:1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Liu C, Ren Y, Li Z, Hu Q, Yin L, et al. 2021. Giant African snail genomes provide insights into molluscan whole‐genome duplication and aquatic–terrestrial transition. Mol Ecol Resour. 21:478–494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Pfenninger M, Bahl A, Streit B.. 1996. Isolation by distance in a population of a small land snail Trochoidea geyeri: evidence from direct and indirect methods. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 263:1211–1217. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pfenninger M, Magnin F.. 2001. Phenotypic evolution and hidden speciation in Candidula unifasciata ssp. (Helicellinae, Gastropoda) inferred by 16S variation and quantitative shell traits. Mol Ecol. 10:2541–2554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Pfenninger M, Posada D.. 2002. Phylogeographic history of the land snail Candidula unifasciata (Helicellinae, Stylommatophora): fragmentation, corridor migration, and secondary contact. Evolution. 56:1776–1788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Pfenninger M, Eppenstein A, Magnin F.. 2003. Evidence for ecological speciation in the sister species Candidula unifasciata (Poiret, 1801) and C. rugosiuscula (Michaud, 1831) (Helicellinae, Gastropoda). Biol J Linn Soc. 79:611–628. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pfenninger M, Nowak C, Magnin F.. 2007. Intraspecific range dynamics and niche evolution in Candidula land snail species. Biol J Linn Soc. 90:303–317. [Google Scholar]
  33. Quevillon E, Silventoinen V, Pillai S, Harte N, Mulder N, et al. 2005. InterProScan: protein domains identifier. Nucleic Acids Res. 33:116–120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Razkin O, Sonet G, Breugelmans K, Madeira MJ, Gómez-Moliner BJ, et al. 2016. Species limits, interspecific hybridization and phylogeny in the cryptic land snail complex Pyramidula: the power of RADseq data. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 101:267–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Roach MJ, Schmidt SA, Borneman AR.. 2018. Purge Haplotigs: allelic contig reassignment for third-gen diploid genome assemblies. BMC Bioinformatics. 19:460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Romero PE, Weigand AM, Pfenninger M.. 2016. Positive selection on panpulmonate mitogenomes provide new clues on adaptations to terrestrial life. BMC Evol Biol. 16:1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Ruan J, Li H.. 2020. Fast and accurate long-read assembly with wtdbg2. Nat Methods. 17:155–158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Saenko SV, Groenenberg DSJ, Davison A, Schilthuizen M.. 2021. The draft genome sequence of the grove snail Cepaea nemoralis. G3 (Bethesda). 11:jkaa071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sauer J, Hausdorf B.. 2010. Reconstructing the evolutionary history of the radiation of the land snail genus Xerocrassa on Crete based on mitochondrial sequences and AFLP markers. BMC Evol Biol. 10:299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Schell T, Feldmeyer B, Schmidt H, Greshake B, Tills O, et al. 2017. An annotated draft Genome for Radix auricularia (Gastropoda, Mollusca). Genome Biol Evol. 9:585–592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Simão FA, Waterhouse RM, Ioannidis P, Kriventseva EV, Zdobnov EM.. 2015. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics. 31:3210–3212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Slater GSC, Birney E.. 2005. Automated generation of heuristics for biological sequence comparison. BMC Bioinformatics. 6:31–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Smit A, Hubley R.. 2008. RepeatModeler Open-1.0. Available fom http://www. repeatmasker.org.
  44. Solem A. 1984. A world model of land snail diversity and abundance. In: Solem A. & van Bruggen A.C. (editors). World-Wide Snails, Biogeographical Studies on Non-Marine Mollusca. Leiden: Brill and Backhuys. p. 6–22. [Google Scholar]
  45. Song L, Shankar DS, Florea L.. 2016. Rascaf: improving genome assembly with RNA sequencing data. Plant Genome. 9:1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Stanke M, Steinkamp R, Waack S, Morgenstern B.. 2004. AUGUSTUS: a web server for gene finding in eukaryotes. Nucleic Acids Research. 32 (suppl_2):W309–W312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Steinegger M, Söding J.. 2017. MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets. Nat Biotechnol. 35:1026–1028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Steinegger M, Söding J.. 2018. Clustering huge protein sequence sets in linear time. Nat Commun. 9:2542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Sun J, Chen C, Miyamoto N, Li R, Sigwart JD, et al. 2020. The Scaly-foot snail genome and implications for the origins of biomineralised armour. Nat Commun. 11:1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Vaser R, Sović I, Nagarajan N, Šikić M.. 2017. Fast and accurate de novo genome assembly from long uncorrected reads. Genome Res. 27:737–746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Walker BJ, Abeel T, Shea T, Priest M, Abouelliel A, et al. 2014. Pilon: an integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement. PLoS One. 9:e112963. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Warren RL, Yang C, Vandervalk BP, Behsaz B, Lagman A, et al. 2015. LINKS: scalable, alignment-free scaffolding of draft genomes with long reads. GigaSci. 4:35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Xu GC, Xu TJ, Zhu R, Zhang Y, Li SQ, et al. 2019. LR-Gapcloser: a tiling path-based gap closer that uses long reads to complete genome assembly. Gigascience. 8:1–14. [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 Availability Statement

All raw data generated for this study (Illumina, PacBio, MinION, and RNA-seq reads) are available at the European Nucleotide Archive database (ENA) under the Project number: PRJEB41346. The final genome assembly and annotation can be found under the accession number GCA_905116865.

The execution of this work involved using many software tools which are listed in Table 1. Supplementary File S1 contains BUSCO results. Supplementary File S2 contains de novo library of repeats generated by RepeatModeler. Supplementary File S3 contains C. unifasciata repeats. Supplementary File S4 contains sequences of protein-coding genes predicted in the C. unifasciata genome. Supplementary File S5 contains proteins predicted in the C. unifasciata genome. Supplementary File S6 contains genome annotation. Supplementary Table S1 contains a comparison between draft genomes assemblies for C. unifasciata obtained by different tools. Supplementary Table S2 contains weights values of evidences for EVM analysis. Supplementary Table S3 contains RepeatMasker results. Supplementary Material is available at figshare: https://doi.org/10.25387/g3.14237828.

Table 2.

Genome assembly and annotation statistics for C. unifasciata and comparison with other land snails genomes

Statistic C. unifasciata C. nemoralis Achatina fulica
Total sequence length 1,286,461,591 3,490,924,950 1,850,322,141
No. of contigs 11,756 28,698 8,122
Contig N50 246,413 330,079 721,038
Contig L50 1,602 3,071 697
Contig NG50 205,769 337,823 584,695
Contig LG50 2,034 2,964 903
No. of scaffolds 8,586 28,537 921
scaffolds > 10000 bp 7,180 26,580 189
Scaffold N50 246,413 333,110 59,589,303
Scaffold L50 940 3,035 13
Scaffold NG50 341,667 341,704 58,752,149
Scaffold LG50 1,188 2,930 15
GC content (%) 40.69 41.25 38.77
BUSCO
Genome
 complete 92.4% (S : 85.3%; D: 7.1%) 89.0% (S : 73.9%; D: 15.1%) 91.5% (S : 84.6%; D: 6.9%)
 fragmented 1.6% 3.4% 2.5%
 missing 6.0% 7.6% 6.0%
Annotation
 complete 94.5%(S : 86.0%; D : 8.5%) 71.7%(S : 59.5%; D : 12.2%) 95.6%(S : 86.8%; D : 8.8%)
 fragmented 2.6% 10.4% 1.9%
 missing 2.9% 17.9% 2.5%
Transcriptome — —
 complete 94.7% (S : 52.6%; D: 42.1%)
 fragmented 3.8%
 missing 1.5%
Open in a new tab

Articles from G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES