Literature DB >> 28486658

A high-coverage draft genome of the mycalesine butterfly Bicyclus anynana.

Reuben W Nowell1, Ben Elsworth1, Vicencio Oostra2, Bas J Zwaan3, Christopher W Wheat4, Marjo Saastamoinen5, Ilik J Saccheri6, Arjen E Van't Hof6, Bethany R Wasik7, Heidi Connahs8, Muhammad L Aslam8, Sujai Kumar1, Richard J Challis1, Antónia Monteiro7,8,9, Paul M Brakefield10, Mark Blaxter1.   

Abstract

The mycalesine butterfly Bicyclus anynana, the "Squinting bush brown," is a model organism in the study of lepidopteran ecology, development, and evolution. Here, we present a draft genome sequence for B. anynana to serve as a genomics resource for current and future studies of this important model species. Seven libraries with insert sizes ranging from 350 bp to 20 kb were constructed using DNA from an inbred female and sequenced using both Illumina and PacBio technology; 128 Gb of raw Illumina data was filtered to 124 Gb and assembled to a final size of 475 Mb (∼×260 assembly coverage). Contigs were scaffolded using mate-pair, transcriptome, and PacBio data into 10 800 sequences with an N50 of 638 kb (longest scaffold 5 Mb). The genome is comprised of 26% repetitive elements and encodes a total of 22 642 predicted protein-coding genes. Recovery of a BUSCO set of core metazoan genes was almost complete (98%). Overall, these metrics compare well with other recently published lepidopteran genomes. We report a high-quality draft genome sequence for Bicyclus anynana. The genome assembly and annotated gene models are available at LepBase (http://ensembl.lepbase.org/index.html).
© The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bicyclus anynana; lepidopteran genome; nymphalidae, nymphalid; satyrid; squinting bush brown

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28486658      PMCID: PMC5493746          DOI: 10.1093/gigascience/gix035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gigascience        ISSN: 2047-217X            Impact factor:   6.524


Data Description

The squinting bush brown butterfly, Bicyclus anynana, is a member of the remarkably speciose nymphalid subtribe Mycalesina, which is distributed across the Old World tropics (Fig. 1). B. anynana is an important model organism for the study of lepidopteran ecology, development, speciation, behaviour, and evolution [1-6]. B. anynana are found primarily in woodland habitats across East Africa (from southern Sudan in the north to Swaziland in the south), and adults are typically observed flying close to the ground, where they feed on fallen fruit [1]. Strikingly, B. anynana exhibits seasonal polyphenism, a form of phenotypic plasticity whereby individuals that develop during the wet season differ in behaviour, appearance, and life history to those that develop during the dry season [7-9]. Wet season butterflies are smaller, have shorter lifespans, are more active, and show larger and more conspicuous eyespots on their wings in comparison to dry season individuals. The genetic basis of this plasticity and its impacts on various other life history and developmental characteristics are ongoing research questions to which the availability of a B. anynana reference genome will contribute [10-12].
Figure 1:

Wet-season morph of Bicyclus anynana (picture credit: William H. Piel and Antónia Monteiro).

Table 1:

Data counts and library information.

Library typePlatformRead lengthInsert size (expected)Number of reads (raw)Number of reads (trimmed)Number of bases (trimmed)SRA run accessions
Short insertIllumina HiSeq2500125 bp paired-end350 bp271 808 057 pairs267 241 712 (98.3%)66 334 099 834 (97.6%)ERR1102671-2, ERR1102675-6
Short insertIllumina HiSeq2500125 bp paired-end550 bp241 050 065 pairs234 269 871 (97.2%)57 913 474 128 (96.1%)ERR1102673-4, ERR1102677-8
Mate pairIllumina HiSeq2500100 bp paired-end3 kb77 105 680 pairs31 848 200 (41.3%)5 758 856 502 (37.3%)ERR1750945
Mate pairIllumina MiSeq100 bp paired-end3 kb5 641 764 pairs2 170 610 (38.5%)397 993 018 (35.3%)ERR754051
Mate pairIllumina HiSeq2500100 bp paired-end5 kb77 614 870 pairs45 676 725 (58.9%)8 203 769 131 (52.8%)ERR1750946
Mate pairIllumina MiSeq100 bp paired-end5 kb7 939 601 pairs4 734 000 (59.6%)861 352 793 (54.2%)ERR754052
Long readPacBio P60.80–50 kb10 kb1 388 7961 199 064 (86.3%)4 086 394 966ERR1797559-74
Wet-season morph of Bicyclus anynana (picture credit: William H. Piel and Antónia Monteiro).

Sampling and sequencing

Genomic DNA was extracted from a B. anynana female that had been inbred via 7 generations of brother-sister matings. The captive laboratory stock population from which these individuals originated was established in 1988 from 80 wild-caught individuals and has been maintained at large effective population sizes to minimise the loss of genetic diversity [1]. Two short-insert libraries with insert sizes of 350 and 550 bp were constructed using Illumina TruSeq Nano reagents and sequenced (125 base, paired-end) on an Illumina HiSeq2500 at Edinburgh Genomics (Edinburgh, UK). DNA from a sister to this focal animal was used to construct four long-insert (mate-pair) libraries with insert sizes of 3 and 5 kb (2 of each) at the Centre for Genomic Research, University of Liverpool (Liverpool, UK); libraries of both insert-sizes were then sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq2500 and an Illumina MiSeq at Edinburgh Genomics (Table 1). DNA from a female descendent of the same inbred line was used to construct 2 long read libraries with insert sizes of 10 and 20 kb, sequenced on the PacBio platform at the Genome Institute of Singapore at ∼×10 coverage using 16 P6 SMRT cells. All raw data have been deposited in the Short Read Archive under the accessions given in Table 1. Data counts and library information. A total of 128.2 Gb of raw Illumina data was filtered for low-quality bases and adapter contamination using Skewer v. 0.2.2 [13], and both raw and trimmed reads were inspected using FastQC v. 0.11.4 [14]. Only 4 Gb of data (3.1%) was discarded, indicating the high quality of the raw data. Kmer frequency distributions were estimated using the “kmercountexact” program from the BBMap v. 36.02 package [15] and showed 2 major coverage peaks at ∼×105 and ∼×210 (Fig. 2). The first peak (×105) represents the proportion of the genome that is heterozygous and has an approximate span of 87.7 Mb (18.4% of the genome; calculated as one-half of the area under the ×105 curve, from ×50 to ×150). The expected proportion of heterozygous sites given 7 brother-sister (full-sib) matings is 0.75⁁7 = 13.3%, or 63.5 Mb. Thus, the greater than expected heterozygosity is likely to be due primarily to selection against highly inbred individuals during the course of the inbreeding regime [16].
Figure 2:

Kmer frequency distribution for B. anynana short-insert libraries (k = 31). The bimodality of the distribution, with peaks at approximately ×105 and ×210, is the result of heterozygosity in the sequence data.

Figure 3:

Taxon-annotated GC-coverage plots for (a) draft and (b) final B. anynana genome assemblies. Each contig/scaffold in the assembly is represented by a circle, coloured according to the best match to taxonomically annotated sequence databases (see legends) and distributed according to the proportion GC (x-axis) and read coverage (y-axis). The upper- and right-hand panels show the distribution of the total span (kb) of contigs/scaffolds for a given coverage (upper panel) or GC (right panel) bin. The heterozygosity in the sample is evident in the bimodal coverage distribution seen in (a). The cluster of orange-coloured contigs at a lower coverage and higher GC than the main cloud were likely derived from contaminant Enterococcus present in the sample. The final assembly (b) shows the effective collapse of heterozygous regions, the removal of contaminant sequences, and the scaffolding of contigs into long contiguous sequences. Note that only taxon annotations with a span > 1 Mb are shown in the legend for clarity.

Kmer frequency distribution for B. anynana short-insert libraries (k = 31). The bimodality of the distribution, with peaks at approximately ×105 and ×210, is the result of heterozygosity in the sequence data.

Contaminant filtering and assembly

Short-insert libraries were screened for the presence of contaminant reads using Taxon-Annotated GC-Coverage (TAGC) plots, or “blobplots” [17]. An initial draft assembly was constructed using the CLC assembler (CLCBio, Copenhagen) and compared to the NCBI nucleotide database (nt) using Megablast v. 2.3.0+ [18], and against the UniRef90 protein database using Diamond v. 0.7.10 [19]. Read coverage for each contig was calculated by mapping both libraries to the CLC assembly using CLC mapper (CLCBio, Copenhagen), and blobplots were generated using Blobtools v. 0.9.19.4 [20] using the “bestsumorder” rule for taxonomic annotation of contigs (Fig. 3). Contigs that showed a substantially different coverage relative to that of the main cluster of contigs and/or good hits to sequences annotated as non-Arthropoda were classed as putative contaminants. A total of 237 394 pairs of reads (∼59 Mb) that were classed as either “mapped/mapped” or “mapped/unmapped” to a putative contaminant were subsequently discarded from further analysis. Taxon-annotated GC-coverage plots for (a) draft and (b) final B. anynana genome assemblies. Each contig/scaffold in the assembly is represented by a circle, coloured according to the best match to taxonomically annotated sequence databases (see legends) and distributed according to the proportion GC (x-axis) and read coverage (y-axis). The upper- and right-hand panels show the distribution of the total span (kb) of contigs/scaffolds for a given coverage (upper panel) or GC (right panel) bin. The heterozygosity in the sample is evident in the bimodal coverage distribution seen in (a). The cluster of orange-coloured contigs at a lower coverage and higher GC than the main cloud were likely derived from contaminant Enterococcus present in the sample. The final assembly (b) shows the effective collapse of heterozygous regions, the removal of contaminant sequences, and the scaffolding of contigs into long contiguous sequences. Note that only taxon annotations with a span > 1 Mb are shown in the legend for clarity. Filtered libraries were reassembled using the heterozygous-aware assembler Platanus v. 1.2.4 [21], with default parameters. Contigs were further scaffolded with the mate pair libraries using SSPACE v. 3.0 [22] and with 35 747 assembled B. anynana transcripts [23] using a combination of L_RNA_scaffolder [24] and SCUBAT v. 2 [25]. A final round of scaffolding was performed with PacBio long reads (fastq files error-corrected using the RS_Preaassembler.2 protocol) using SSPACE-LongRead v. 1.1 [26]. Finally, gaps between scaffolds were filled using GapFiller v. 1.10 [27] and PBJelly v. 15.8.24 [28]. Our final assembly (v. 1.2) comprised 10 800 scaffolds spanning a total of 475.4 Mb, with a scaffold N50 of 638 kb (Table 2). The genome-wide proportion of G+C was 36.5%, while the number of undetermined bases (Ns) was 5.8 Mb (∼1.2% of the total span). We determined assembly completeness by mapping both genomic and transcriptomic reads from B. anynana (SRA whole genome sequencing accessions ERR1102671-8 and transcriptome accessions ERR1022636-7, ERR1022640-1, and ERR1022644-5, downloaded October 2016) to the genome using BWA mem v. 0.7.12 [29] and STAR v. 020201 [30], respectively. Over 99% of reads from the 2 short-insert libraries mapped to the assembly, suggesting that the vast majority of the genome represented by these data has been assembled. In addition, 94.9% of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the assembly, suggesting that the majority of transcribed genes are present. Gene-level completeness was assessed using CEGMA v. 2.5 [31] and BUSCO v. 2.0 [32]. The proportion of CEGMA genes “completely” recovered (n = 248) was 81%, increasing to 97% when partially recovered genes were included. The recovery of BUSCO genes specific to the metazoa (n = 978) was higher, at 98% for complete genes, increasing to 99% when partial genes were included. An almost complete set (99.2%) of BUSCO genes specific to the Arthropoda (n = 1066) was also recovered. In addition, CEGMA indicated a duplication rate of 1.1 while BUSCO estimated only ∼2% of genes were present in multiple copies. The high complete CEGMA/BUSCO scores suggestthat a good assembly has captured the majority of core metazoan/Arthropod genes in full length and that the fragmentation of genes across multiple scaffolds is low. In addition, the low duplication rates suggest that most genes are present in single copy, and thus that the genome does not include significant duplicated segments representing alternative haplotypes.
Table 2:

Summary of B. anynana genome assembly and comparison to selected lepidopteran genomes.

B. anynana B. mori D. plexippus H. melpomene M. cinxia
Assembly version1.2ASM15162v13Hmel2MelCinx1.0
Span475.4 Mb481.8 Mb248.6 Mb275.2 Mb389.9 Mb
Contigs
 Number23 69988 67310 682310048 180
 N50a78.7 kb15.5 kb111.0 kb328.9 kb14.1 kb
 NumN50b154380755482147366
Scaffolds
 Number10 80043 37953977958261
 N50638.3 kb4008.4 kb715.6 kb2102.7 kb119.3 kb
 NumN501943810134970
 N9099.3 kb61.1 kb160.5 kb273.1 kb29.6 kb
 NumN909092583661763396
Shortest/longest201 b/5 Mb53 b/16.2 Mb300 b/6.2 Mb394 b/9.4 Mb1.5 kb/668 kb
G+C content36.5%37.7%31.6%32.8%32.6%
NNNs
 Span5.8 Mb (1.2%)50.1 Mb (10.4%)6.7 Mb (2.7%)986 kb (0.4%)28.9 Mb (7.4%)
 N501.4 kb5.0 kb2.5 kb2.4 kb1.4 kb
CEGMAc (n = 248)C: 81.1%; D: 1.1; F: 97.2%C: 76.6%; F: 96.8%C: 90.3%; F: 96%C: 88.7%; F: 96.8%NA
BUSCOc (n = 1066)C: 98.3%; D: 1%; F: 99.2%C: 97.5%; D: 0.5%; F: 98.4%C: 97.4%; D: 8.6%; F: 98.5%C: 98.8%; D: 0.7%; F: 99.3%C: 85.7%; D: 0.2%; F: 91.8%

aN50: the length of the contig/scaffold at which 50% of the genome span is accounted for, given a list of sequences sorted by length. bnumN50: the number of sequences required to reach the N50 sequence. cCEGMA/BUSCO notation: C, proportion (%) of genes completely recovered; D, duplication rate; F, proportion (%) of genes at least partially recovered (including complete genes); n, number of queries. Note that duplication rate (D) for CEGMA is given as the average number of (complete) genes recovered, whereas for BUSCO it is the proportion of complete genes recovered multiple times. BUSCO values are based on comparisons to the Arthropoda gene set.

Summary of B. anynana genome assembly and comparison to selected lepidopteran genomes. aN50: the length of the contig/scaffold at which 50% of the genome span is accounted for, given a list of sequences sorted by length. bnumN50: the number of sequences required to reach the N50 sequence. cCEGMA/BUSCO notation: C, proportion (%) of genes completely recovered; D, duplication rate; F, proportion (%) of genes at least partially recovered (including complete genes); n, number of queries. Note that duplication rate (D) for CEGMA is given as the average number of (complete) genes recovered, whereas for BUSCO it is the proportion of complete genes recovered multiple times. BUSCO values are based on comparisons to the Arthropoda gene set.

Annotation

Prior to gene prediction, we masked the B. anynana assembly for repetitive elements to minimise the number of spurious open-reading frames due to low-complexity repeat regions or transposable elements. Repetitive motifs in the B. anynana assembly were modelled ab initio using RepeatModeler v. 1.0.5 (http://www.repeatmasker.org/RepeatModeler.html). Repeats occurring within genuine coding regions were excluded by querying the proteins from a previous B. anynana assembly (v. 0.1) versus the RepeatModeler database using BLAST, removing any sequences showing a match at the E-value ≤ 1e-10 threshold. The filtered RepeatModeler database was combined with known repeats from the Lepidoptera using RepBase v. 20.05 [33] and input to RepeatMasker v. 4.0.5 [34] to mask the assembly. Overall, approximately one-quarter of the assembly (122.6 Mb) was masked from gene prediction (Table 3).
Table 3:

Major types of repeat content for B. anynana.

Repeat typeSpan (Mb)Proportion of genome
SINE10.82.3%
LINE15.33.2%
LTR elements1.10.2%
DNA elements0.80.2%
Small RNA10.82.3%
Unclassified86.218.1%
Total122.625.8%
Major types of repeat content for B. anynana. Gene finding was performed following a 2-pass approach [35]. Initial gene models were constructed with MAKER v. 2.31 [36] using HMMs derived from SNAP [37] and GeneMark-ES v. 4.3 [38] in conjunction with a recently published B. anynana transcriptome as evidence. MAKER gene models were then passed to AUGUSTUS v. 3.0.3 [39] for refinement, resulting in an initial set of 26 722 predicted protein-coding genes. A set of basic filters was applied to remove likely spurious gene models (Table 4), resulting in the deletion of 4080 gene models. Protein sequences from the filtered 22 642 genes were annotated using BLAST searches versus UniRef90 and the NCBI non-redundant protein database (nr), and domains/motifs were described using InterProScan5 [40]. Summary statistics for the 22 642 predicted gene models are given in Table 5.
Table 4:

Number of genes in potential error categories.

CategoryDescriptionNumber of genes
(a)Single-exon7112
(b)Small exon (<9bp)1866
(c)Small intron (≤40 bp)45
(d)Short (CDS < 120 bp)127
(e)No hit to nr6532
(f)Duplicate (≥98% identity over ≥98% query length)822
Totala4080

aDefined as the non-redundant total of the intersection of each category (a) to (d) with category (e), plus the shorter of any duplicates identified in category (f).

Table 5:

Summary of B. anynana gene prediction.

B. anynana B. mori D. plexippus H. melpomene M. cinxia
Assembly version1.2ASM15162v13Hmel2MelCinx1.0
Number of CDS22 64219 61815 13013 17816 668
Mean length1.4 kb1.6 kb1.4 kb1.3 kb958 bp
Median length1.2 kb1.2 kb981 bp927 bp693 bp
Min/max84 bp/28.3 kb23 bp/60.3 kb9 bp/58.9 kb45 bp/46.4 kb6 bp/45.4 kb
Introns
 Mean number per gene4.49.95.75NAa
 Length (mean/median)1.3/0.6 kb2.4/0.8 kb795/280 bp960/416 bpNA
Exons
 Length (mean/median)208/126 bp283/161 bp206/149 bp284/157 bpNA
Number of single-exon genes3571174414613113NA
Transcript GC49.2%48.3%46.5%43%41.7%
Gene frequencyb (genes per Mb)47.732.160.955.5NA

aGFF for M. cinxia not available. bDefined as the number of genes divided by the total genome span (Mb).

Number of genes in potential error categories. aDefined as the non-redundant total of the intersection of each category (a) to (d) with category (e), plus the shorter of any duplicates identified in category (f). Summary of B. anynana gene prediction. aGFF for M. cinxia not available. bDefined as the number of genes divided by the total genome span (Mb).

Comparison to other lepidopteran genomes

To ascertain the relative quality of the B. anynana v. 1.2 assembly, we compared our results to 9 other published lepidopteran genomes available on LepBase (http://lepbase.org/) [41]: Bombyx mori ASM15162 v. 1 [42], Danaus plexippus v. 3 [43], Heliconius melpomene Hmel2 [44,45], Lerema accius v. 1.1 [46], Melitaea cinxia MelCinx1.0 [47], Papilio glaucus v. 1.1 [48], Papilio polytes Ppol 1.0 [49], Papilio xuthus Pap_xu_1.0 [49], and Plutella xylostella DBM_FJ_v1.1 [50]. The B. anynana v. 1.2 assembly was of high quality compared to other published genomes, with the majority of the genome represented in a relatively small number of scaffolds despite being only marginally smaller than the largest lepidopteran genome, B. mori (Fig. 4a). Interestingly, B. anynana v. 1.2 encodes the highest number of proteins of the 10 species compared (Fig. 4b). Despite measures to eliminate potentially spurious ORFs caused by annotation error or by duplication, B. anynana encodes ∼3250 more genes than the diamondback moth P. xylostella, and ∼10 400 more than the swallowtail P. polytes. It is tempting to attribute the apparently high number of genes to the developmental plasticity and alternative seasonal forms with divergent morphologies and life histories in B. anynana. However, it remains to be determined whether the number of genes predicted in B. anynana is a function of its larger genome size or unusual life history characteristics, or if further curation of the v. 1.2 gene models will reduce the number of inferred genes.
Figure 4:

Assembly and gene prediction comparison among 10 lepidopteran genomes. (a) Cumulative assembly curves showing the relationship between the number of scaffolds (x-axis) and the cumulative span of each assembly (y-axis), coloured by species. Higher-quality assemblies are represented by an almost-vertical line (e.g., H. melpomene Hmel2 assembly in black), indicating that a relatively small number of scaffolds is required to reach the final genome span; conversely, a long tail indicates that the assembly includes a large number of smaller scaffolds. The curve for B. anynana (brown and bold) suggests a good assembly for this species, with the majority of the assembly comprised of relatively few scaffolds. (b)B. anynana v. 1.2 encodes the greatest number of genes of the 10 genomes and is particularly different from B. mori, which is of equivalent length. Species names/colours are as follows: “bicyclus” (brown), B. anynana; “bombyx” (blue), B. mori; “danaus” (light green), D. plexippus; “heliconius” (black), H. melpomene; “lerema” (dark green), L. accius; “melitaea” (orange), M. cinxia; “glaucus” (red), P. glaucus; “polytes” (pink), P. polytes; “xuthus” (violet), P. xuthus; “plutella” (grey), P. xylostella.

Assembly and gene prediction comparison among 10 lepidopteran genomes. (a) Cumulative assembly curves showing the relationship between the number of scaffolds (x-axis) and the cumulative span of each assembly (y-axis), coloured by species. Higher-quality assemblies are represented by an almost-vertical line (e.g., H. melpomene Hmel2 assembly in black), indicating that a relatively small number of scaffolds is required to reach the final genome span; conversely, a long tail indicates that the assembly includes a large number of smaller scaffolds. The curve for B. anynana (brown and bold) suggests a good assembly for this species, with the majority of the assembly comprised of relatively few scaffolds. (b)B. anynana v. 1.2 encodes the greatest number of genes of the 10 genomes and is particularly different from B. mori, which is of equivalent length. Species names/colours are as follows: “bicyclus” (brown), B. anynana; “bombyx” (blue), B. mori; “danaus” (light green), D. plexippus; “heliconius” (black), H. melpomene; “lerema” (dark green), L. accius; “melitaea” (orange), M. cinxia; “glaucus” (red), P. glaucus; “polytes” (pink), P. polytes; “xuthus” (violet), P. xuthus; “plutella” (grey), P. xylostella.

Concluding remarks

We present a high-coverage, high-quality draft assembly and annotation of the mycalesine butterfly B. anynana. The assembly will be a core resource for ongoing analyses of population genomics, discovery of cis-regulatory elements of wing patterning and other genes, functional genetics and functional ecology of complex gene families, and the evolution of novel and plastic lifecycle strategies in lepidopterans and other arthropods.

Abbreviations

BUSCO: Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs; CEGMA: Core Eukaryotic Genes Mapping Approach; CDS: coding sequence; ORF: open reading frame. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file.
  42 in total

1.  Scaffolding pre-assembled contigs using SSPACE.

Authors:  Marten Boetzer; Christiaan V Henkel; Hans J Jansen; Derek Butler; Walter Pirovano
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-12-12       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  Using native and syntenically mapped cDNA alignments to improve de novo gene finding.

Authors:  Mario Stanke; Mark Diekhans; Robert Baertsch; David Haussler
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2008-01-24       Impact factor: 6.937

Review 3.  Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs.

Authors:  S F Altschul; T L Madden; A A Schäffer; J Zhang; Z Zhang; W Miller; D J Lipman
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  1997-09-01       Impact factor: 16.971

4.  Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND.

Authors:  Benjamin Buchfink; Chao Xie; Daniel H Huson
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 28.547

5.  A heterozygous moth genome provides insights into herbivory and detoxification.

Authors:  Minsheng You; Zhen Yue; Weiyi He; Xinhua Yang; Guang Yang; Miao Xie; Dongliang Zhan; Simon W Baxter; Liette Vasseur; Geoff M Gurr; Carl J Douglas; Jianlin Bai; Ping Wang; Kai Cui; Shiguo Huang; Xianchun Li; Qing Zhou; Zhangyan Wu; Qilin Chen; Chunhui Liu; Bo Wang; Xiaojing Li; Xiufeng Xu; Changxin Lu; Min Hu; John W Davey; Sandy M Smith; Mingshun Chen; Xiaofeng Xia; Weiqi Tang; Fushi Ke; Dandan Zheng; Yulan Hu; Fengqin Song; Yanchun You; Xiaoli Ma; Lu Peng; Yunkai Zheng; Yong Liang; Yaqiong Chen; Liying Yu; Younan Zhang; Yuanyuan Liu; Guoqing Li; Lin Fang; Jingxiang Li; Xin Zhou; Yadan Luo; Caiyun Gou; Junyi Wang; Jian Wang; Huanming Yang; Jun Wang
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2013-01-13       Impact factor: 38.330

6.  Toward almost closed genomes with GapFiller.

Authors:  Marten Boetzer; Walter Pirovano
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 13.583

7.  Ensembl 2016.

Authors:  Andrew Yates; Wasiu Akanni; M Ridwan Amode; Daniel Barrell; Konstantinos Billis; Denise Carvalho-Silva; Carla Cummins; Peter Clapham; Stephen Fitzgerald; Laurent Gil; Carlos García Girón; Leo Gordon; Thibaut Hourlier; Sarah E Hunt; Sophie H Janacek; Nathan Johnson; Thomas Juettemann; Stephen Keenan; Ilias Lavidas; Fergal J Martin; Thomas Maurel; William McLaren; Daniel N Murphy; Rishi Nag; Michael Nuhn; Anne Parker; Mateus Patricio; Miguel Pignatelli; Matthew Rahtz; Harpreet Singh Riat; Daniel Sheppard; Kieron Taylor; Anja Thormann; Alessandro Vullo; Steven P Wilder; Amonida Zadissa; Ewan Birney; Jennifer Harrow; Matthieu Muffato; Emily Perry; Magali Ruffier; Giulietta Spudich; Stephen J Trevanion; Fiona Cunningham; Bronwen L Aken; Daniel R Zerbino; Paul Flicek
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2015-12-19       Impact factor: 16.971

8.  Mind the gap: upgrading genomes with Pacific Biosciences RS long-read sequencing technology.

Authors:  Adam C English; Stephen Richards; Yi Han; Min Wang; Vanesa Vee; Jiaxin Qu; Xiang Qin; Donna M Muzny; Jeffrey G Reid; Kim C Worley; Richard A Gibbs
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Differential Expression of Ecdysone Receptor Leads to Variation in Phenotypic Plasticity across Serial Homologs.

Authors:  Antónia Monteiro; Xiaoling Tong; Ashley Bear; Seng Fatt Liew; Shivam Bhardwaj; Bethany R Wasik; April Dinwiddie; Carole Bastianelli; Wei Fun Cheong; Markus R Wenk; Hui Cao; Kathleen L Prudic
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Major Improvements to the Heliconius melpomene Genome Assembly Used to Confirm 10 Chromosome Fusion Events in 6 Million Years of Butterfly Evolution.

Authors:  John W Davey; Mathieu Chouteau; Sarah L Barker; Luana Maroja; Simon W Baxter; Fraser Simpson; Richard M Merrill; Mathieu Joron; James Mallet; Kanchon K Dasmahapatra; Chris D Jiggins
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 3.154

View more
  20 in total

1.  Multiple Loci Control Eyespot Number Variation on the Hindwings of Bicyclus anynana Butterflies.

Authors:  Angel G Rivera-Colón; Erica L Westerman; Steven M Van Belleghem; Antónia Monteiro; Riccardo Papa
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Recessive Z-linked lethals and the retention of haplotype diversity in a captive butterfly population.

Authors:  Ilik J Saccheri; Samuel Whiteford; Carl J Yung; Arjen E Van't Hof
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  A transcriptomic atlas underlying developmental plasticity of seasonal forms of Bicyclus anynana butterflies.

Authors:  Shen Tian; Antónia Monteiro
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 8.800

4.  Stage- and sex-specific transcriptome analyses reveal distinctive sensory gene expression patterns in a butterfly.

Authors:  David A Ernst; Erica L Westerman
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2021-08-02       Impact factor: 3.969

5.  Genomic architecture and introgression shape a butterfly radiation.

Authors:  Nathaniel B Edelman; Paul B Frandsen; Michael Miyagi; Bernardo Clavijo; John Davey; Rebecca B Dikow; Gonzalo García-Accinelli; Steven M Van Belleghem; Nick Patterson; Daniel E Neafsey; Richard Challis; Sujai Kumar; Gilson R P Moreira; Camilo Salazar; Mathieu Chouteau; Brian A Counterman; Riccardo Papa; Mark Blaxter; Robert D Reed; Kanchon K Dasmahapatra; Marcus Kronforst; Mathieu Joron; Chris D Jiggins; W Owen McMillan; Federica Di Palma; Andrew J Blumberg; John Wakeley; David Jaffe; James Mallet
Journal:  Science       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  A high-coverage draft genome of the mycalesine butterfly Bicyclus anynana.

Authors:  Reuben W Nowell; Ben Elsworth; Vicencio Oostra; Bas J Zwaan; Christopher W Wheat; Marjo Saastamoinen; Ilik J Saccheri; Arjen E Van't Hof; Bethany R Wasik; Heidi Connahs; Muhammad L Aslam; Sujai Kumar; Richard J Challis; Antónia Monteiro; Paul M Brakefield; Mark Blaxter
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 6.524

7.  apterous A specifies dorsal wing patterns and sexual traits in butterflies.

Authors:  Anupama Prakash; Antónia Monteiro
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Genomic and transcriptomic analysis unveils population evolution and development of pesticide resistance in fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda.

Authors:  Furong Gui; Tianming Lan; Yue Zhao; Wei Guo; Yang Dong; Dongming Fang; Huan Liu; Haimeng Li; Hongli Wang; Ruoshi Hao; Xiaofang Cheng; Yahong Li; Pengcheng Yang; Sunil Kumar Sahu; Yaping Chen; Le Cheng; Shuqi He; Ping Liu; Guangyi Fan; Haorong Lu; Guohai Hu; Wei Dong; Bin Chen; Yuan Jiang; Yongwei Zhang; Hanhong Xu; Fei Lin; Bernard Slippers; Alisa Postma; Matthew Jackson; Birhan Addisie Abate; Kassahun Tesfaye; Aschalew Lemma Demie; Meseret Destaw Bayeleygne; Dawit Tesfaye Degefu; Feng Chen; Paul K Kuria; Zachary M Kinyua; Tong-Xian Liu; Huanming Yang; Fangneng Huang; Xin Liu; Jun Sheng; Le Kang
Journal:  Protein Cell       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 15.328

9.  Rapid Increase in Genome Size as a Consequence of Transposable Element Hyperactivity in Wood-White (Leptidea) Butterflies.

Authors:  Venkat Talla; Alexander Suh; Faheema Kalsoom; Vlad Dinca; Roger Vila; Magne Friberg; Christer Wiklund; Niclas Backström
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 3.416

10.  High-Quality Genome Assembly and Comprehensive Transcriptome of the Painted Lady Butterfly Vanessa cardui.

Authors:  Linlin Zhang; Rachel A Steward; Christopher W Wheat; Robert D Reed
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 3.416

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.