
==== Front
G3 (Bethesda)
Genetics
g3journal
G3: Genes | Genomes | Genetics
2160-1836
Oxford University Press US

39031588
10.1093/g3journal/jkae167
jkae167
Genome Report
AcademicSubjects/SCI01180
AcademicSubjects/SCI01140
A chromosome-level genome assembly of Drosophila madeirensis, a fruit fly species endemic to the island of Madeira
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7067-7146
Tomihara Kenta Advanced ICT Research Institute, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Kobe, Hyogo 651-2492, Japan

Llopart Ana Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Genetics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
Department of Biology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA

Yamamoto Daisuke Advanced ICT Research Institute, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Kobe, Hyogo 651-2492, Japan

Vogel K Editor
Corresponding author: Advanced ICT Research Institute, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Kobe, Hyogo 651-2492, Japan. Email: kentatomihara@gmail.com; *Corresponding author: Advanced ICT Research Institute, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Kobe, Hyogo 651-2492, Japan. Email: daichan@nict.go.jp
Conflict of interest The author(s) declare that they have no conflict of interest.

9 2024
20 7 2024
20 7 2024
14 9 jkae16720 2 2024
11 7 2024
08 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Genetics Society of America.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Drosophila subobscura is distributed across Europe, the Near East, and the Americas, while its sister species, Drosophila madeirensis, is endemic to the island of Madeira in the Atlantic Ocean. D. subobscura is known for its strict light-dependence in mating and its unique courtship displays, including nuptial gift-giving. D. subobscura has also attracted the interest of researchers because of its abundant variations in chromosomal polymorphisms correlated to the latitude and season, which have been used as a tool to track global climate warming. Although D. madeirensis can be an important resource for understanding the evolutionary underpinning of these genetic characteristics of D. subobscura, little work has been done on the biology of this species. Here, we used a HiFi long-read sequencing data set to produce a de novo genome assembly for D. madeirensis. This assembly comprises a total of 111 contigs spanning 135.5 Mb and has an N50 of 24.2 Mb and a BUSCO completeness score of 98.6%. Each of the 6 chromosomes of D. madeirensis consisted of a single contig except for some centromeric regions. Breakpoints of the chromosomal inversions between D. subobscura and D. madeirensis were characterized using this genome assembly, updating some of the previously identified locations.

Drosophila madeirensis
genome assembly
HiFi
inversion breakpoint
JSPS 10.13039/501100001691 JP23KJ2210 MEXT 10.13039/501100001700 JP21H04790
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The genus Drosophila contains over 1,600 species (O’Grady and DeSalle 2018), which are highly divergent in morphology and behavior (Kopp et al. 2000; Prud’homme et al. 2006; Tanaka et al. 2009; Baker et al. 2024). Among these, Drosophila melanogaster is one of the best-studied organisms in the animal kingdom: a large collection of mutants and genetically modified fly stocks as well as sophisticated genetic techniques have made it an unparalleled model for studies in all biological disciplines. Because D. melanogaster can be genetically modified in numerous ways, the functions of a large number of genes have already been unveiled using this species. Thus, comparative approaches with members of the genus Drosophila will benefit enormously from the knowledge accumulated by the studies in D. melanogaster. Drosophila subobscura offers a good starting point for such comparative approaches because both classic genetics at the chromosomal level and modern molecular genetics, including genome sequence data, are publicly available for this species as potential substrates for addressing specific scientific questions.

D. subobscura was originally found in Europe (Buzzati-Traverso and Scossiroli 1955) and was more recently introduced to the Americas (Prevosti et al. 1988; Ayala et al. 1989). D. subobscura is known for a few unique displays in courtship behavior, such as nuptial gift-giving (Steele 1986a, 1986b; Tanaka et al. 2017), an absolute light requirement for mating (Philip et al. 1944; Wallace and Dobzhansky 1946; Keesey et al. 2020), an absence of courtship songs (Ewing and Bennet-Clark 1968), and monoandry (Maynard Smith 1956; Fisher et al. 2013). The karyotype of D. subobscura consists of 5 large chromosomes named O, U, J, A, and E, and a small dot chromosome, which are also termed Muller elements E, B, D, A, C, and F, respectively (Karageorgiou et al. 2019). Many variations in the sequence arrangement have been found across all 5 large chromosomes (reviewed in Sperlich and Pfriem 1986). Inversion polymorphisms show adaptive variation patterns across latitudes (Ayala et al. 1989) and seasons (Rodríguez-Trelles et al. 1996; Rodríguez-Trelles 2003). Thus, chromosomal inversion polymorphisms of D. subobscura have been used to track global climate warming (Rodríguez-Trelles and Rodríguez 1998; Balanyá et al. 2006). Recent long-read–based whole-genome sequencing helped unravel the link between inversions and seasonal adaptation in D. subobscura (Karageorgiou et al. 2020).

The subobscura subgroup consists of three species, namely, D. subobscura, Drosophila madeirensis, and Drosophila guanche (Fig. 1a; Barrio et al. 1994; Barrio and Ayala 1997; Gao et al. 2007). These 3 species are morphologically very similar, although the adults of D. madeirensis and D. guanche are larger in size and lighter in color than those of D. subobscura (Fig. 1a). Additionally, the wings of D. madeirensis are clouded toward tip and along the costal vein, which is different from those of the other 2 species (Monclús 1984). Among them, D. subobscura and D. madeirensis are particularly closely related and are believed to have diverged allopatrically about 0.6–1.0 million years ago (Ramos-Onsins et al. 1998; Herrig et al. 2014). D. madeirensis is endemic to Madeira, an island in the Atlantic Ocean located ∼580 km west of Morocco (Fig. 1b; Monclús 1984). Under laboratory conditions, D. subobscura and D. madeirensis can mate, and some of their F1 hybrids are fertile (summarized in Supplementary Table 1). In nature, limited gene flow was detected between D. subobscura on Madeira and D. madeirensis (Herrig et al. 2014). The hybrid offspring displays a range of anomalies, including dwarf testis, immotile sperm, reduced viability, extra sex combs, and aberrant head and abdomen shape (Papaceit et al. 1991; Khadem and Krimbas 1993). No previous work has compared the behaviors of these species, although a unique courtship ritual, nuptial gift-giving, is known in D. subobscura. Obviously, D. madeirensis will provide an ideal platform for studying the molecular, cellular, and neural bases of species barrier and speciation processes when its genome sequence becomes available. However, while a substantial body of knowledge has been accumulated on the biology of D. subobscura, work on D. madeirensis has been sparse. In the present study, a highly complete and contiguous de novo genome assembly for D. madeirensis was constructed using HiFi long-read sequencing, which will serve as an important resource for future studies in all biology disciplines in this species subgroup.

Fig. 1. Overview of D. madeirensis and its genome. a) A phylogenetic tree and pictures of fly samples of the species belonging to the D. subobscura subgroup. b) Distribution of D. madeirensis. D. madeirensis is endemic to the island of Madeira in the Atlantic Ocean. The map was modified from the digital map published by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan. c) Representation of the distribution of genes and repeat sequences on each D. madeirensis assembled chromosome. Chromosomes are ordered by their size. The proportion of elements per each 100-kb nonoverlapping window is plotted as a histogram. The y-axis range is set to 0–1. The circular genome map was produced using the circlize R package (Gu et al. 2014).

Materials and methods

Insects

The D. madeirensis strain RF1 was reared at 18°C on standard cornmeal–yeast–agar medium and kept in an incubator on a 12-h light/dark cycle. This strain was established from a single mated female (i.e. isofemale line) collected in Ribeiro Frio, Madeira (Herrig et al. 2014).

Genome extraction and sequencing

Ten adult females were collected in 1 tube, and genomic DNA was extracted using a Genomic-tip 20/G kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer's protocol. A library for HiFi sequencing was prepared using a SMRTbell Prep Kit 3.0 (Pacific Biosciences, San Diego, CA), and sequencing was performed with a PacBio Sequel II system (Pacific Biosciences). Library preparation and HiFi genome sequencing were performed by Takara Bio (Shiga, Japan). A library for short-read sequencing was prepared using a NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Prep kit (New England Biolabs, Beverly, MA) and sequenced using a NovaSeq 6000 (Illumina, San Diego, CA) with 150 bp paired-end reads. Library preparation and genome sequencing for short-read sequencing were performed by Novogene (Beijing, China).

Genome size estimation

Low-quality reads and adapter sequences were removed from raw short reads using Trim Galore! (https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/trim_galore/; Quality Phred score cutoff, 20; maximum trimming error rate, 0.1; minimum required adapter overlap, 1 bp; minimum required sequence length for both reads before a sequence pair is removed, 20 bp). The optimal k-mer length for this data set was estimated by KmerGenie (Chikhi and Medvedev 2014), and then the genome size of D. madeirensis was estimated using this k-mer value (k-mer = 111).

Genome assembly

HiFi reads from PacBio Sequel II were assembled with Hifiasm (Cheng et al. 2021), HiCanu (Nurk et al. 2020), PacBio's Improved Phased (IPA; https://github.com/PacificBiosciences/pbipa), Flye (Kolmogorov et al. 2019), and NextDenovo (Hu et al. 2024). The options used in the assembler tools are listed in Supplementary Table 2. Assembly statistics and completeness were calculated by QUAST-LG (Mikheenko et al. 2018) and BUSCO (Waterhouse et al. 2018), respectively. In BUSCO, consensus sequences were searched against the diptera_odb10 dataset. Because NextDenovo assembled most of the nuclear genome and the genome size matched that estimated by the k-mer method, we used this assembly for further analyses (see Results and discussion).

The custom repeat library for the genome sequence assembled by NextDenovo was generated by RepeatModeler (Flynn et al. 2020). Based on this library, repetitive sequences were masked from the assembled genome by RepeatMasker (http://www.repeatmasker.org). For each masked contig, BLASTn was performed against the NCBI nt database, and the sequence with the highest homology was obtained (options: -task megablast -evalue 1 × 10−10 -soft_masking true). Contigs that were assigned to the sequences derived from bacterial species were removed from the genome assembly. To calculate coverage, HiFi and Illumina short reads were mapped to this assembly using minimap2 (Li 2018) with the map-hifi and sr options, respectively.

To compare the quality of genome assemblies in the D. subobscura subgroup, reference sequences and genomic short reads of D. subobscura (Bracewell et al. 2019) and D. guanche (Puerma et al. 2018) were obtained from public databases (D. subobscura reference, GCF_008121235.1; D. subobscura short reads, SRR9967659; D. guanche reference, dgua6.chromosomes.v2.fasta in https://denovo.cnag.cat/dguanche; D. guanche short reads, ERR2036500; all accession numbers are for NCBI). QUAST-LG and BUSCO were performed as above. Merqury was also performed to calculate consensus quality values (Rhie et al. 2020).

RNA extraction, sequencing, and gene annotations

Total RNA was extracted from embryos, larvae, pupae, and adults (Supplementary Table 3) using TRIzol reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Poly-A selected libraries were prepared with a NEBNext Ultra II Directional RNA Library Prep Kit (New England Biolabs) and sequenced using the NovaSeq 6000 (Illumina) with 150 bp paired-end reads. Library preparation and sequencing were performed by Novogene.

Low-quality reads and adapter sequences were removed from raw reads using Trim Galore! with the same options as for genomic short reads. Gene models were predicted by BRAKER3 (Gabriel et al. 2023) using a repeat-masked genome assembly, trimmed RNA-seq reads, and a database of protein families across arthropods obtained from OrthoDB (Kuznetsov et al. 2023). The gene models were annotated using a DIAMOND BLASTp search (Buchfink et al. 2021) against the NCBI RefSeq database.

Alignment of D. madeirensis and D. subobscura genome sequences

The D. madeirensis genome was aligned to the D. subobscura reference genome (Bracewell et al. 2019) by minimap2 (Li 2018) with the asm5 option. Harr plots were drawn by pafr (https://github.com/dwinter/pafr) and a custom R script.

Results and discussion

Genome assembly

With the HiFi data set, we compared the performance of 5 assemblers: Hifiasm (Cheng et al. 2021), HiCanu (Nurk et al. 2020), IPA (https://github.com/PacificBiosciences/pbipa), Flye (Kolmogorov et al. 2019), and NextDenovo (Hu et al. 2024) (Table 1). There were large differences in contig continuity. The largest contigs in Hifiasm and HiCanu were assembled to 43.2 Mb, whereas those of NextDenovo, IPA, and Flye were assembled to 30.8, 30.6, and 19.2 Mb, respectively. NextDenovo and HiCanu showed the two highest N50 values (24.2 and 21.2 Mb, respectively) among the assemblers (3.3–16.1 Mb). Overall, Hifiasm, HiCanu, and NextDenovo performed better than the rest of the assemblers in terms of contig continuity. The total contig lengths also varied substantially according to the assembler (Table 1; 146.3–328.2 Mb). Using the k-mer method, we evaluated the genome size of D. madeirensis to be 140.6 Mb. A previous work estimated the genome size of D. subobscura to be about 137 Mb by k-mer and 148 Mb by flow cytometry (Karageorgiou et al. 2019), in line with our estimation for the D. madeirensis genome. Taking these results together, we consider that the size of the total contig lengths was correctly estimated by NextDenovo but overestimated by the other 4 assemblers. Therefore, we conclude that the genome sequence assembled by NextDenovo would be the most reliable in regard to both the contig continuity and genome size.

Table 1. Statistics of genomes assembled by 5 different assemblers.

Assembler	QUAST-LG	BUSCO (3,285 groups searched)	
	Number of contigs	Total length (bp)	Largest contig (bp)	N50 (bp)	L50	Complete and single-copy	Complete and duplicated	Fragmented	Missing	
Hifiasm	226	292,387,389	43,242,118	21,175,663	5	3,203	54	17	11	
HiCanu	1,478	328,219,170	43,238,710	16,072,932	8	3,081	176	17	11	
IPA	110	174,598,151	30,560,687	9,811,834	6	3,240	17	17	11	
Flye	747	273,503,793	19,173,260	3,263,947	16	3,172	85	17	11	
NextDenovo	146	146,286,141	30,799,563	24,201,710	3	3,241	18	15	11	
Final assembly (contaminants removed)	111	135,508,623	30,799,563	24,201,710	3	3,240	18	16	11	

To identify possible contaminants in the contigs obtained with NextDenovo, we performed BLASTn searches against the NCBI nt genome database. Out of 146 contigs, 24 were assigned to Gluconobacter (5.5 Mb in total), 9 were assigned to Serratia (5.1 Mb), 1 was assigned to Klebsiella (85 kb), and 1 was assigned to Komagataeibacter (45 kb) bacterial species. All these bacteria are inhabitants of the Drosophila gut (Staubach et al. 2013; Chaston et al. 2016; Ramírez-Camejo et al. 2017; Gao et al. 2023). We analyzed the sequence after removing these contigs derived from bacteria. The average coverage of HiFi reads across this assembly was 89.67×. This assembly comprised a total of 111 contigs spanning 135.5 Mb and had an N50 of 24.2 Mb (Table 1). Of the 3,285 dipteran BUSCOs, 3,240 (98.6%) were found to be complete and single-copy (Table 1). All 6 chromosomes of D. madeirensis were assembled into a single contig (Fig. 1), except for some centromeric regions (see below). The quality of this assembly is comparable to that of two other D. subobscura subgroup species (Supplementary Table 4).

Gene annotation

Repeat sequences were predicted using RepeatMasker, which covered 19.5% of the whole genome (Fig. 1c). Using RNA-seq data and a protein data set across arthropods obtained from OrthoDB (Kuznetsov et al. 2023), BRAKER3 (Gabriel et al. 2023) annotated 13,789 protein-coding genes in the D. madeirensis genome, which would potentially produce 17,455 unique proteins (Fig. 1c).

Centromeres in many multicellular eukaryotes consist of highly repetitive DNA sequences (Melters et al. 2013). In D. subobscura, all 5 large chromosomes are telocentric (i.e. the centromeres are at the end of chromosomes; Buzzati-Traverso and Scossiroli 1955; Bracewell et al. 2019). We found that repetitive DNA sequences in the D. madeirensis genome are concentrated at the end of chromosomes where gene density is also lower (Fig. 1c). This pattern is similar to that of D. subobscura (Bracewell et al. 2019), suggesting that D. madeirensis also has telocentric chromosomes. However, it is important to note that analyses of centromeric regions are technically challenging and may have not been fully assembled in this study: the presence of repetitive sequences hampered reliable assembly of small contigs into 6 chromosomes of D. madeirensis. Illumina short reads and PacBio HiFi reads mapped uniformly across most genomic regions, except for some centromeric regions, where significant fluctuations in the coverage were found, indicative of the reduced quality of assembly in these regions (Supplementary Fig. 1).

Chromosomal structures of D. madeirensis and D. subobscura

Figure 2 shows the genome alignment of D. madeirensis and the D. subobscura reference strain (14011-0131.10; Bracewell et al. 2019). All 6 D. subobscura chromosomes were uniquely aligned with the D. madeirensis chromosomes, demonstrating the contiguity and completeness of both assemblies. In previous studies, the chromosomal structure of D. madeirensis was referred to as Oms, U1 + 2, JST, Ah1 + h2 + h3 + 5, and EST, while that of the D. subobscura 14011-0131.10 strain was called Oms + 4, U1 + 2, JST, AST, and EST (Karageorgiou et al. 2019, 2020). There are no obvious structural rearrangements of chromosomes U, J, and E between the two species, so that the same names are used to describe them. In contrast, there are large inversions on chromosomes A and O and a small additional inversion at the end of chromosome A of D. madeirensis, consistent with previous polytene chromosome analyses of the hybrids between D. madeirensis and D. subobscura (Krimbas and Loukas 1984; Papaceit and Prevosti 1989).

Fig. 2. Harr plot made with minimap2 (Li 2018) whole-genome alignment between D. madeirensis and D. subobscura genome sequences. Sequences aligned in forward and reverse orientations are represented by upward-sloping and downward-sloping lines, respectively.

Breakpoints of inversion O4 found in the D. subobscura Oms+4 chromosome were previously characterized using different D. subobscura strains: the proximal O4 breakpoint contains two genes, i.e. Peroxidase (Pxd) and CG5225, while the distal O4 inversion breakpoint contains another two genes, i.e. SET domain containing 8 (Set8) and ATP-dependent chromatin assembly factor large subunit (Acf; Puerma et al. 2016). Here, the gene names are based on the Drosophila melanogaster ortholog. Our alignment of D. subobscura and D. madeirensis genomes confirmed that the O4 inversion occurred at these breakpoints (Fig. 3a; Supplementary Table 5): the inversion O4 involved the coding regions of CG5225 and Acf. The proximal and distal inversion breakpoints of O4 were both duplicated, and hence, upward-sloping and downward-sloping diagonals were drawn to overlap at the breakpoints in Fig. 3a. Due to this duplication event, D. subobscura should have an intact copy of each of CG5225 and Acf in addition to a disrupted copy of CG5225 and Acf. Indeed, the genome database shows that D. subobscura has the full length CG5225 and Acf genes (NCBI accession numbers XP_034663006 and XP_034663002). The detailed information about the structure of this inversion is available in Puerma et al. (2016).

Fig. 3. Detailed characterization of inversion breakpoints. Harr plots of D. madeirensis and D. subobscura genome sequences at the O4 a), A6 b), and Ah4 c) breakpoints are shown. Sequences aligned in forward and reverse orientations are represented by upward-sloping and downward-sloping lines, respectively. The dotted lines indicate breakpoints of the inversions. Each filled rectangle represents a coding region of the D. madeirensis gene model.

Ah1+h2+h3+5 and AST were predicted to have 2 inversions, namely, Ah4 and A6 (Karageorgiou et al. 2019). Because A6 is a terminal inversion, it has only 1 breakpoint. By designing molecular markers on the D. subobscura and D. guanche genomes, Orengo et al. (2019) mapped the A6 breakpoint to an ∼20-kb-long region flanked by genes homologous to Drosophila pseudoobscura GA22805 and GA24354 (note that A6 and Ah4 were referred to as Af6 and Af1 in their study, respectively). Our alignment of the D. subobscura and D. madeirensis genomes further narrowed the A6 breakpoint to a 11.3-kb region near DMAD_02253, a gene homologous to GA24354 (Fig. 3b, Supplementary Table 5), which supports the result of the previous study. Orengo et al. (2019) also determined the proximal and distal breakpoints of Ah4: an ∼44-kb region flanked by the genes homologous to D. pseudoobscura GA14783 (corresponding to the D. madeirensis gene DMAD_00872) and GA13678 (DMAD_00079), and an ∼33-kb region flanked by GA17070 (DMAD_00099) and GA15499 (DMAD_00868), respectively. However, our alignment of the D. subobscura and D. madeirensis genomes gave a different result. We located the proximal Ah4 breakpoint on a 3.2-kb region near DMAD_00038 and the distal breakpoint on a 1.2-kb region near DMAD_00892 (Fig. 3c; Supplementary Table 5). The proximal and distal Ah4 breakpoints determined in this study were about 521 and 87 kb away from the closest genes characterized by Orengo et al. (2019), respectively (Supplementary Fig. 2 and Table 5). We found many inversions on the A chromosome that had occurred after the separation of D. guanche from the clade of D. subobscura/D. madeirensis (Supplementary Fig. 3), and this may have complicated the previous mapping of the Ah4 breakpoints, which relied on molecular markers designed solely based on the genomic information of D. guanche and D. subobscura (Orengo et al. 2019). These considerations highlight the importance of using closely related lineages with fewer chromosomal rearrangements in mapping chromosomal breakpoints.

The comprehensive knowledge of the D. madeirensis genome obtained in this study will provide a solid basis for future comparative analyses of the diverged phenotypic traits found among the three members of the D. subobscura species subgroup.

Supplementary Material

jkae167_Supplementary_Data

Acknowledgments

We thank Ryoya Tanaka for useful comments. We also thank Nobuhiro Yamagata for technical assistance and Manami Adachi for secretarial assistance.

Data availability

The raw sequence data have been submitted to DDBJ under accession numbers DRR528066 (genomic HiFi reads), DRR528092 (genomic short reads), and DRR528093-528099 (RNA-seq reads). The D. madeirensis genome assembly and gene models have been submitted to DDBJ under accession numbers AP029263-AP029373.

Supplemental material available at G3 online.

Funding

This work was supported by a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grant-in-Aid (no. JP23KJ2210) to K.T. and a Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) Grant-in-Aid (no. JP21H04790) to D.Y.

Author contributions

K.T. and D.Y. designed the study. K.T. conducted most of the experiments and analyses. A.L. provided the insects used in this study. K.T. wrote the manuscript. K.T., A.L., and D.Y. reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
==== Refs
Literature cited

Ayala FJ , SerraL, PrevostiA. 1989. A grand experiment in evolution: the Drosophila subobscura colonization of the Americas. Genome. 31 (1 ):246–255. doi:10.1139/g89-042.
Baker CA , GuanX-J, ChoiM, MurthyM, BakerC. 2024. The role of fruitless in specifying courtship behaviors differs across Drosophila species. Sci Adv. 10 (11 ):eadk1273. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adk1273.
Balanyá J , OllerJM, HueyRB, GilchristGW, SerraL. 2006. Global genetic change tracks global climate warming in Drosophila subobscura. Science. 313 (5794 ):1773–1775. 10.1126/science.1131002.16946033
Barrio E , AyalaFJ. 1997. Evolution of the Drosophila obscura species group inferred from the Gpdh and Sod genes. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 7 (1 ):79–93. doi:10.1006/mpev.1996.0375.9007023
Barrio E , LatorreA, MoyaA. 1994. Phylogeny of the Drosophila obscura species group deduced from mitochondrial DNA sequences. J Mol Evol. 39 (5 ):478–488. doi:10.1007/BF00173417.7528808
Bracewell R , ChatlaK, NalleyMJ, BachtrogD. 2019. Dynamic turnover of centromeres drives karyotype evolution in Drosophila. Elife. 8 :e49002. doi:10.7554/eLife.49002.31524597
Buchfink B , ReuterK, DrostHG. 2021. Sensitive protein alignments at tree-of-life scale using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 18 (4 ):366–368. doi:10.1038/s41592-021-01101-x.33828273
Buzzati-Traverso AA , ScossiroliRE. 1955. The ‘obscura group’ of the genus Drosophila. Adv Genet. 7 :47–92. doi:10.1016/S0065-2660(08)60093-0.13258372
Chaston JM , DobsonAJ, NewellPD, DouglasAE. 2016. Host genetic control of the microbiota mediates the Drosophila nutritional phenotype. Appl Environ Microbiol. 82 (2 ):671–679. doi:10.1128/AEM.03301-15.26567306
Cheng H , ConcepcionGT, FengX, ZhangH, LiH. 2021. Haplotype-resolved de novo assembly using phased assembly graphs with hifiasm. Nat Methods. 18 (2 ):170–175. doi:10.1038/s41592-020-01056-5.33526886
Chikhi R , MedvedevP. 2014. Informed and automated k-mer size selection for genome assembly. Bioinformatics. 30 (1 ):31–37. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt310.23732276
Ewing AW , Bennet-ClarkHC. 1968. The courtship songs of Drosophila. Behaviour. 31 (3–4 ):288–301. doi:10.1163/156853968X00298.
Fisher DN , DoffRJ, PriceTAR. 2013. True polyandry and pseudopolyandry: why does a monandrous fly remate? BMC Evol Biol. 13 (1 ):157. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-13-157.23885723
Flynn JM , HubleyR, GoubertC, RosenJ, ClarkAG, FeschotteC, SmitAF. 2020. RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 117 (17 ):9451–9457. doi:10.1073/pnas.1921046117.32300014
Gabriel L , BrůnaT, HoffKJ, EbelM, LomsadzeA, BorodovskyM, StankeM. 2023. BRAKER3: fully automated genome annotation using RNA-seq and protein evidence with GeneMark-ETP, AUGUSTUS, and TSEBRA. Genome Res. 34 (5 ):769–777. 10.1101/gr.278090.123.
Gao JJ , WatabeHA, AotsukaT, PangJF, ZhangYP. 2007. Molecular phylogeny of the Drosophila obscura species group, with emphasis on the Old World species. BMC Evol Biol. 7 (1 ):87. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-87.17555574
Gao HH , ZhaoS, WangRJ, QinDY, ChenP, ZhangA-S, ZhuangQ-Y, ZhaiY-F, ZhouX-H. 2023. Gut bacterium promotes host fitness in special ecological niche by affecting sugar metabolism in Drosophila suzukii. Insect Sci. 30 (6 ):1713–1733. doi:10.1111/1744-7917.13189.36810869
Gu Z , GuL, EilsR, SchlesnerM, BrorsB. 2014. Circlize implements and enhances circular visualization in R. Bioinformatics. 30 (19 ):2811–2812. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu393.24930139
Herrig DK , ModrickAJ, BrudE, LlopartA. 2014. Introgression in the Drosophila subobscura—D. madeirensis sister species: evidence of gene flow in nuclear genes despite mitochondrial differentiation. Evolution (NY). 68 (3 ):705–719. doi:10.1111/evo.12295.
Hu J , WangZ, SunZ, HuB, AyoolaAO, LiangF, LiJ, SandovalJR, CooperDN, YeK, et al 2024. NextDenovo: an efficient error correction and accurate assembly tool for noisy long reads. Genome Biol. 25 (1 ):107. doi:10.1186/s13059-024-03252-4.38671502
Karageorgiou C , Gámez-VisairasV, TarríoR, Rodríguez-TrellesF. 2019. Long-read based assembly and synteny analysis of a reference Drosophila subobscura genome reveals signatures of structural evolution driven by inversions recombination-suppression effects. BMC Genomics. 20 (1 ):223. doi:10.1186/s12864-019-5590-8.30885123
Karageorgiou C , TarríoR, Rodríguez-TrellesF. 2020. The cyclically seasonal Drosophila subobscura inversion O7 originated from fragile genomic sites and relocated immunity and metabolic genes. Front Genet. 11 :565836. doi:10.3389/fgene.2020.565836.33193649
Keesey IW , GrabeV, KnadenM, HanssonBS. 2020. Divergent sensory investment mirrors potential speciation via niche partitioning across Drosophila. Elife. 9 :e57008. doi:10.7554/eLife.57008.32602834
Khadem M , KrimbasCB. 1993. Studies of the species barrier between Drosophila subobscura and D. madeirensis. III. How universal are the rules of speciation? Heredity (Edinb). 70 (4 ):353–361. doi:10.1038/hdy.1993.50.8496066
Kolmogorov M , YuanJ, LinY, PevznerPA. 2019. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat Biotechnol. 37 (5 ):540–546. doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0072-8.30936562
Kopp A , DuncanI, CarrollSB. 2000. Genetic control and evolution of sexually dimorphic characters in Drosophila. Nature. 408 (6812 ):553–559. doi:10.1038/35046017.11117736
Krimbas CB , LoukasM. 1984. Evolution of the obscura group Drosophila species. I. Salivary chromosomes and quantitative characters in D. subobscura and two closely related species. Heredity (Edinb). 53 (3 ):469–482. doi:10.1038/hdy.1984.109.
Kuznetsov D , TegenfeldtF, ManniM, SeppeyM, BerkeleyM, KriventsevaEV, ZdobnovEM. 2023. OrthoDB v11: annotation of orthologs in the widest sampling of organismal diversity. Nucleic Acids Res. 51 (D1 ):D445–D451. doi:10.1093/nar/gkac998.36350662
Li H . 2018. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 34 (18 ):3094–3100. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191.29750242
Maynard Smith J . 1956. Fertility, mating behaviour and sexual selection in Drosophila subobscura. J Genet. 54 (2 ):261–279. doi:10.1007/BF02982781.
Melters DP , BradnamKR, YoungHA, TelisN, MayMR, RubyJG, SebraR, PelusoP, EidJ, RankD, et al 2013. Comparative analysis of tandem repeats from hundreds of species reveals unique insights into centromere evolution. Genome Biol. 14 (1 ):R10. doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-1-r10.23363705
Mikheenko A , PrjibelskiA, SavelievV, AntipovD, GurevichA. 2018. Versatile genome assembly evaluation with QUAST-LG. Bioinformatics. 34 (13 ):i142–i150. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty266.29949969
Monclús M . 1984. Drosophilidae of Madeira, with the description of Drosophila madeirensis n. sp. J Zool Syst Evol Res. 22 (2 ):94–103. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0469.1984.tb00648.x.
Nurk S , WalenzBP, RhieA, VollgerMR, LogsdonGA, GrotheR, MigaKH, EichlerEE, PhillippyAM, KorenS. 2020. Hicanu: accurate assembly of segmental duplications, satellites, and allelic variants from high-fidelity long reads. Genome Res. 30 (9 ):1291–1305. doi:10.1101/gr.263566.120.32801147
O’Grady PM , DeSalleR. 2018. Phylogeny of the genus Drosophila. Genetics. 209 (1 ):1–25. doi:10.1534/genetics.117.300583.29716983
Orengo DJ , PuermaE, AguadéM. 2019. The molecular characterization of fixed inversions breakpoints unveils the ancestral character of the Drosophila guanche chromosomal arrangements. Sci Rep. 9 (1 ):1706. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-37121-5.30737415
Papaceit M , AntonioJS, PrevostiA. 1991. Genetic analysis of extra sex combs in the hybrids between Drosophila subobscura and D. madeirensis. Genetica. 84 (2 ):107–114. doi:10.1007/BF00116550.1756962
Papaceit M , PrevostiA. 1989. Differences in chromosome A arrangement between Drosophila madeirensis and Drosophila subobscura. Experientia. 45 (3 ):310–312. doi:10.1007/BF01951821.2924882
Philip U , RendelJM, SpurwayH, HaldaneJBS. 1944. Genetics and karyology of Drosophila subobscura. Nature. 154 (3904 ):260–262. doi:10.1038/154260a0.
Prevosti A , RiboG, SerraL, AguadeM, BalañaJ, MonclusM, MestresF. 1988. Colonization of America by Drosophila subobscura: experiment in natural populations that supports the adaptive role of chromosomal-inversion polymorphism. Proc. Natl Acad Sci. 85 (15 ):5597–5600. doi:10.1073/pnas.85.15.5597.16593967
Prud’homme B , GompelN, RokasA, KassnerVA, WilliamsTM, YehS-D, TrueJR, CarrollSB. 2006. Repeated morphological evolution through cis-regulatory changes in a pleiotropic gene. Nature. 440 (7087 ):1050–1053. doi:10.1038/nature04597.16625197
Puerma E , OrengoDJ, AguadéM. 2016. Multiple and diverse structural changes affect the breakpoint regions of polymorphic inversions across the Drosophila genus. Sci Rep. 6 (1 ):36248. doi:10.1038/srep36248.27782210
Puerma E , OrengoDJ, CruzF, Gómez-GarridoJ, LibradoP, SalgueroD, PapaceitM, GutM, SegarraC, AliotoTS, et al 2018. The high-quality genome sequence of the oceanic island endemic species Drosophila guanche reveals signals of adaptive evolution in genes related to flight and genome stability. Genome Biol Evol. 10 (8 ):1956–1969. doi:10.1093/gbe/evy135.29947749
Ramírez-Camejo LA , Maldonado-MoralesG, BaymanP. 2017. Differential microbial diversity in Drosophila melanogaster: are fruit flies potential vectors of opportunistic pathogens? Int J Microbiol. 2017 :8526385. doi:10.1155/2017/8526385.29234354
Ramos-Onsins S , SegarraC, RozasJ, AguadéM. 1998. Molecular and chromosomal phylogeny in the obscura group of Drosophila inferred from sequences of the rp49 gene region. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 9 (1 ):33–41. doi:10.1006/mpev.1997.0438.9479691
Rhie A , WalenzBP, KorenS, PhillippyAM. 2020. Merqury: reference-free quality, completeness, and phasing assessment for genome assemblies. Genome Biol. 21 (1 ):245. doi:10.1186/s13059-020-02134-9.32928274
Rodríguez-Trelles F . 2003. Seasonal cycles of allozyme-by-chromosomal-inversion gametic disequilibrium in Drosophila subobscura. Evolution (NY). 57 (4 ):839–848. 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00295.x.
Rodríguez-Trelles F , AlvarezG, ZapataC. 1996. Time-series analysis of seasonal changes of the O inversion polymorphism of Drosophila subobscura. Genetics. 142 (1 ):179–187. doi:10.1093/genetics/142.1.179.8770595
Rodríguez-Trelles F , RodríguezMA. 1998. Rapid micro-evolution and loss of chromosomal diversity in Drosophila in response to climate warming. Evol Ecol. 12 (7 ):829–838. doi:10.1023/A:1006546616462.
Sperlich, D., and P.Pfriem, 1986 Chromosomal polymorphism in natural and experimental populations. In: AshburnerM, CarsonHL, ThompsonJM, Jr, editors. The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila. New York: Academic Press. p. 257–309.
Staubach F , BainesJF, KünzelS, BikEM, PetrovDA. 2013. Host species and environmental effects on bacterial communities associated with Drosophila in the laboratory and in the natural environment. PLoS One. 8 (8 ):e70749. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070749.23967097
Steele RH . 1986a. Courtship feeding in Drosophila subobscura. I. The nutritional significance of courtship feeding. Anim Behav. 34 (4 ):1087–1098. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80168-3.
Steele RH . 1986b. Courtship feeding in Drosophila subobscura. II. Courtship feeding by males influences female mate choice. Anim Behav. 34 (4 ):1099–1108. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80169-5.
Tanaka R , HiguchiT, KohatsuS, SatoK, YamamotoD. 2017. Optogenetic activation of the fruitless-labeled circuitry in Drosophila subobscura males induces mating motor acts. J Neurosci. 37 (48 ):11662–11674. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1943-17.2017.29109241
Tanaka K , KoppA, BarminaO. 2009. Distinct developmental mechanisms underlie the evolutionary diversification of Drosophila sex combs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 106 (12 ):4764–4769. doi:10.1073/pnas.0807875106.19255422
Wallace B , DobzhanskyT. 1946. Experiments on sexual isolation in Drosophila: vIII. Influence of light on the mating behavior of Drosophila subobscura, Drosophila persimilis and Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 32 (8 ):226–234. doi:10.1073/pnas.32.8.226.16578209
Waterhouse RM , SeppeyM, SimaoFA, ManniM, IoannidisP, KlioutchnikovG, KriventsevaEV, ZdobnovEM. 2018. BUSCO applications from quality assessments to gene prediction and phylogenomics. Mol Biol Evol. 35 (3 ):543–548. doi:10.1093/molbev/msx319.29220515
