
==== Front
Wellcome Open Res
Wellcome Open Res
Wellcome Open Research
2398-502X
F1000 Research Limited London, UK

39229001
10.12688/wellcomeopenres.22584.1
Data Note
Articles
The genome sequence of a drosophilid fruit fly, Drosophila limbata von Roser 1840
[version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Obbard Darren J. Investigation Resources Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5392-8142
1
Darwin Tree of Life Barcoding collective
Wellcome Sanger Institute Tree of Life Management, Samples and Laboratory team
Wellcome Sanger Institute Scientific Operations: Sequencing Operations
Wellcome Sanger Institute Tree of Life Core Informatics team
Tree of Life Core Informatics collective
Darwin Tree of Life Consortiuma
1 Institute of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
a mark.blaxter@sanger.ac.uk
No competing interests were disclosed.

10 7 2024
2024
9 36524 6 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Obbard DJ et al.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

We present a genome assembly from an individual male Drosophila limbata (drosophilid fruit fly; Arthropoda; Insecta; Diptera; Drosophilidae). The genome sequence is 233.5 megabases in span. Most of the assembly is scaffolded into 6 chromosomal pseudomolecules. The mitochondrial genome has also been assembled and is 16.09 kilobases in length.

Drosophila limbata
drosophilid fruit fly
genome sequence
chromosomal
Diptera
Wellcome Trust206194 218328 This work was supported by Wellcome through core funding to the Wellcome Sanger Institute [206194, <a href=https://doi.org/10.35802/206194>https://doi.org/10.35802/206194</a>] and the Darwin Tree of Life Discretionary Award [218328, <a href=https://doi.org/10.35802/218328>https://doi.org/10.35802/218328 </a>]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
==== Body
pmcSpecies taxonomy

Eukaryota; Opisthokonta; Metazoa; Eumetazoa; Bilateria; Protostomia; Ecdysozoa; Panarthropoda; Arthropoda; Mandibulata; Pancrustacea; Hexapoda; Insecta; Dicondylia; Pterygota; Neoptera; Endopterygota; Diptera; Brachycera; Muscomorpha; Eremoneura; Cyclorrhapha; Schizophora; Acalyptratae; Ephydroidea; Drosophilidae; Drosophilinae; Drosophilini; Drosophila; Drosophila; quinaria group; Drosophila limbata von Roser 1840 (NCBI:txid42028).

Background

Drosophila limbata von Roser 1840 is a medium sized ( ca. 3.0–3.5 mm) yellowish-brown drosophilid ‘fruit fly’ ( Figure 1A and 1B). It is one of around 30 British and Irish species of Drosophila ( Chandler, 2023), and is a member of the quinaria species group within the subgenus Drosophila ( Bächli et al., 2004). Flies are superficially similar in appearance to their close relative Drosophila kuntzei ( Bächli et al., 2004), but can be separated on the shape of the abdominal bands, by dissection of the terminalia, and (in wild flies) by their overall darker brown colouration ( Figure 1A). Unlike most other members of the quinaria group, which are predominantly fungus specialists ( Scott Chialvo et al., 2019), D. limbata uses decaying plant matter as a substrate, including several species of Cucurbitaceae and Apiaceae ( Hummel et al., 1979; Offenberger & Klarenberg, 1992; van Alphen et al., 1991). Although Drosophila limbata have been maintained in laboratory culture, the species seems to have been remarkably little studied, with just a handful of papers discussing such disparate topics as population dynamics ( Hummel et al., 1979), parasitism ( Gillis & Hardy, 1997; van Alphen et al., 1991), alcohol tolerance ( Mercot et al., 1994), and courtship song ( Neems et al., 1997).

Figure 1. Drosophila limbata specimens.

A: Wild-collected male (above) and female (below) Drosophila limbata presented with a 3 mm scale bar. B: The four lab-reared brothers selected for sequencing: specimen ID SAN00001918, ToLID idDroLimb2 (second from left) used for PacBio sequencing, specimen ID SAN00001919, ToLID idDroLimb3 (second from right) used for Hi-C sequencing, and specimen ID SAN00001920, ToLID idDroLimb4 (right) used for RNA sequencing. C: The vegetable patch from which the mother of the sequenced flies was collected on 2021-09-05 (Cherry Gardens Farm, East Sussex, England; 51.0994 N, 0.1639 E).

In nature, D. limbata is broadly distributed across the palearctic, from the West of Ireland to the East of Russia, and from Crete in the south to central Finland to the north ( Bächli, 2024). Relatively few records are available for the UK ( GBIF Secretariat, 2024), and the species was not reported either from Scotland by Basden in 1950–52 (43,629 flies examined; Basden (1955)) or from a survey of Southern England by Dyson-Hudson in 1952–53 (18,535 flies examined in the survey, although a total of eight D. limbata were reported to have been caught separately; Dyson-Hudson (1954)). Nevertheless, the adults can be seen across much of the year ( GBIF Secretariat, 2024), and the species is not reported to be threatened. It thus seems likely that the scarcity of UK records reflects the challenge of identification, and the failure of these flies to come to fruit baits.

Here we present a chromosomally complete genome sequence for Drosophila limbata, derived from the DNA of three male offspring of a wild female that was collected from courgette and squash plants at Cherry Gardens Farm, East Sussex, as part of the Darwin Tree of Life Project. This genome sequence will help to resolve relationships among the Drosophilidae and will further build on the value of this family as a model clade for comparative genomics and molecular evolution. This project is a collaborative effort to sequence all named eukaryotic species in the Atlantic Archipelago of Britain and Ireland.

Genome sequence report

The genome was sequenced from a male Drosophila limbata ( Figure 1) reared at the Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Edinburgh. A total of 107-fold coverage in Pacific Biosciences single-molecule HiFi long reads was generated. Primary assembly contigs were scaffolded with chromosome conformation Hi-C data. Manual assembly curation corrected 28 missing joins or mis-joins and removed 5 haplotypic duplications, reducing the scaffold number by 1.92%, and decreasing the scaffold N50 by 6.57%.

The final assembly has a total length of 233.5 Mb in 510 sequence scaffolds with a scaffold N50 of 29.2 Mb ( Table 1). The snail plot in Figure 2 provides a summary of the assembly statistics, while the distribution of assembly scaffolds on GC proportion and coverage is shown in Figure 3. The cumulative assembly plot in Figure 4 shows curves for subsets of scaffolds assigned to different phyla. Most (71.2%) of the assembly sequence was assigned to 6 chromosomal-level scaffolds, representing 5 autosomes and the X sex chromosome. Chromosome-scale scaffolds confirmed by the Hi-C data are named in order of size ( Figure 5; Table 2). The X chromosome was identified based on PacBio read coverage. We expected to find a Y chromosome, but this could not be identified and is likely in the unplaced contigs. The order and orientation of contigs along Chromosome 6 between 1.6 Mb and 7.4 Mb is uncertain. While not fully phased, the assembly deposited is of one haplotype. Contigs corresponding to the second haplotype have also been deposited. The mitochondrial genome was also assembled and can be found as a contig within the multifasta file of the genome submission.

Table 1. Genome data for Drosophila limbata, idDroLimb2.1.

Project accession data	
Assembly identifier	idDroLimb2.1	
Species	Drosophila limbata	
Specimen	idDroLimb2	
NCBI taxonomy ID	42028	
BioProject	PRJEB68012	
BioSample ID	SAMEA12110471	
Isolate information	idDroLimb2: whole organism (genome sequence)
idDroLimb3: whole organism (Hi-C sequencing)
idDroLimb4: whole organism (RNA sequencing)	
Assembly metrics *	Benchmark	
Consensus quality (QV)	59.6	≥ 50	
k-mer completeness	100.0%	≥ 95%	
BUSCO **	C:97.4%[S:96.9%,D:0.5%],
F:0.3%,M:2.3%,n:3,285	C ≥ 95%	
Percentage of assembly
mapped to chromosomes	71.2%	≥ 95%	
Sex chromosomes	X	localised
homologous pairs	
Organelles	Mitochondrial genome: 16.09 kb	complete single
alleles	
Raw data accessions	
PacificBiosciences Sequel IIe	ERR12205281	
Hi-C Illumina	ERR12245608, ERR12245609	
PolyA RNA-Seq Illumina	ERR12708753	
Genome assembly	
Assembly accession	GCA_963924055.1	
Accession of alternate haplotype	GCA_963924035.1	
Span (Mb)	233.5	
Number of contigs	733	
Contig N50 length (Mb)	1.0	
Number of scaffolds	510	
Scaffold N50 length (Mb)	29.2	
Longest scaffold (Mb)	37.0	
* Assembly metric benchmarks are adapted from column VGP-2020 of “Table 1: Proposed standards and metrics for defining genome assembly quality” from Rhie et al. (2021).

** BUSCO scores based on the diptera_odb10 BUSCO set using version v5.4.3. C = complete [S = single copy, D = duplicated], F = fragmented, M = missing, n = number of orthologues in comparison. A full set of BUSCO scores is available at https://blobtoolkit.genomehubs.org/view/Drosophila_limbata/dataset/GCA_963924055.1/busco.

Figure 2. Genome assembly of Drosophila limbata, idDroLimb2.1: metrics.

The BlobToolKit snail plot shows N50 metrics and BUSCO gene completeness. The main plot is divided into 1,000 size-ordered bins around the circumference with each bin representing 0.1% of the 233,538,449 bp assembly. The distribution of scaffold lengths is shown in dark grey with the plot radius scaled to the longest scaffold present in the assembly (37,002,035 bp, shown in red). Orange and pale-orange arcs show the N50 and N90 scaffold lengths (29,161,486 and 202,746 bp), respectively. The pale grey spiral shows the cumulative scaffold count on a log scale with white scale lines showing successive orders of magnitude. The blue and pale-blue area around the outside of the plot shows the distribution of GC, AT and N percentages in the same bins as the inner plot. A summary of complete, fragmented, duplicated and missing BUSCO genes in the diptera_odb10 set is shown in the top right. An interactive version of this figure is available at https://blobtoolkit.genomehubs.org/view/Drosophila_limbata/dataset/GCA_963924055.1/snail.

Figure 3. Genome assembly of Drosophila limbata, idDroLimb2.1: BlobToolKit GC-coverage plot.

Sequences are coloured by phylum. Circles are sized in proportion to sequence length. Histograms show the distribution of sequence length sum along each axis. An interactive version of this figure is available at https://blobtoolkit.genomehubs.org/view/Drosophila_limbata/dataset/GCA_963924055.1/blob.

Figure 4. Genome assembly of Drosophila limbata, idDroLimb2.1: BlobToolKit cumulative sequence plot.

The grey line shows cumulative length for all sequences. Coloured lines show cumulative lengths of sequences assigned to each phylum using the buscogenes taxrule. An interactive version of this figure is available at https://blobtoolkit.genomehubs.org/view/Drosophila_limbata/dataset/GCA_963924055.1/cumulative.

Figure 5. Genome assembly of Drosophila limbata, idDroLimb2.1: Hi-C contact map of the idDroLimb2.1 assembly, visualised using HiGlass.

Chromosomes are shown in order of size from left to right and top to bottom. An interactive version of this figure may be viewed at https://genome-note-higlass.tol.sanger.ac.uk/l/?d=A6WVNgRTTCy8cVHqR08cvA.

Table 2. Chromosomal pseudomolecules in the genome assembly of Drosophila limbata, idDroLimb2.

INSDC
accession	Chromosome	Length (Mb)	GC%	
OZ001352.1	1	35.13	38.0	
OZ001353.1	2	32.02	37.0	
OZ001354.1	3	29.16	38.0	
OZ001355.1	4	25.45	38.0	
OZ001356.1	5	7.52	31.0	
OZ001351.1	X	37.0	36.5	
OZ001357.1	MT	0.02	22.0	

The estimated Quality Value (QV) of the final assembly is 59.6 with k-mer completeness of 100.0%, and the assembly has a BUSCO v completeness of 97.4% (single = 96.9%, duplicated = 0.5%), using the diptera_odb10 reference set ( n = 3,285).

Metadata for specimens, BOLD barcode results, spectra estimates, sequencing runs, contaminants and pre-curation assembly statistics are given at https://links.tol.sanger.ac.uk/species/42028.

Methods

Sample acquisition and nucleic acid extraction

The Drosophila limbata specimens used in the genome assembly were first-generation male progeny from a wild-collected female. The mother was collected from a vegetable patch (Cherry Gardens Farm, East Sussex, England; 51.0994 N, 0.1639 E) on 2021-09-05. The sequenced flies were reared on a standard laboratory banana Drosophila medium ( https://figshare.com/articles/figure/Drosophila_Media_Recipes/21590724). Drosophila limbata specimen ID SAN00001918 (ToLID idDroLimb2) was used for PacBio DNA sequencing, specimen ID SAN00001919 (ToLID idDroLimb3) was used for Hi-C sequencing, and specimen ID SAN00001920 (ToLID idDroLimb4) was used for RNA sequencing.

The workflow for high molecular weight (HMW) DNA extraction at the Wellcome Sanger Institute (WSI) Tree of Life Core Laboratory includes a sequence of core procedures: sample preparation; sample homogenisation, DNA extraction, fragmentation, and clean-up. The idDroLimb2 sample was weighed and dissected on dry ice ( Jay et al., 2023), and tissue was homogenised using a PowerMasher II tissue disruptor ( Denton et al., 2023a). HMW DNA was extracted using the Manual MagAttract v1 protocol ( Strickland et al., 2023b). DNA was sheared into an average fragment size of 12–20 kb in a Megaruptor 3 system with speed setting 30 ( Todorovic et al., 2023). Sheared DNA was purified by solid-phase reversible immobilisation ( Strickland et al., 2023a): in brief, the method employs a 1.8X ratio of AMPure PB beads to sample to eliminate shorter fragments and concentrate the DNA. The concentration of the sheared and purified DNA was assessed using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer and Qubit Fluorometer and Qubit dsDNA High Sensitivity Assay kit. Fragment size distribution was evaluated by running the sample on the FemtoPulse system.

RNA was extracted from the idDroLimb4 sample in the Tree of Life Laboratory at the WSI using the RNA Extraction: Automated MagMax™ mirVana protocol ( do Amaral et al., 2023). The RNA concentration was assessed using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer and a Qubit Fluorometer using the Qubit RNA Broad-Range Assay kit. Analysis of the integrity of the RNA was done using the Agilent RNA 6000 Pico Kit and Eukaryotic Total RNA assay.

Protocols developed by the WSI Tree of Life laboratory are publicly available on protocols.io ( Denton et al., 2023b).

Sequencing

Pacific Biosciences HiFi circular consensus DNA sequencing libraries were constructed according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Poly(A) RNA-Seq libraries were constructed using the NEB Ultra II RNA Library Prep kit. DNA and RNA sequencing was performed by the Scientific Operations core at the WSI on Pacific Biosciences Sequel IIe (HiFi) and Illumina NovaSeq 6000 (RNA-Seq) instruments. Hi-C data were also generated from specimen idDroLimb3 using the Arima2 kit and sequenced on the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 instrument.

Genome assembly and curation

Assembly was carried out with Hifiasm ( Cheng et al., 2021) and haplotypic duplication was identified and removed with purge_dups ( Guan et al., 2020). The assembly was then scaffolded with Hi-C data ( Rao et al., 2014) using YaHS ( Zhou et al., 2023). The assembly was checked for contamination and corrected using the TreeVal pipeline ( Pointon et al., 2023). Manual curation was performed using JBrowse2 ( Diesh et al., 2023), HiGlass ( Kerpedjiev et al., 2018) and PretextView ( Harry, 2022). The mitochondrial genome was assembled using MitoHiFi ( Uliano-Silva et al., 2023), which runs MitoFinder ( Allio et al., 2020) and uses these annotations to select the final mitochondrial contig and to ensure the general quality of the sequence. The mitochondrial reference was Drosophila suzukii (NC_060762.1).

Final assembly evaluation

The final assembly was post-processed and evaluated with the three Nextflow ( Di Tommaso et al., 2017) DSL2 pipelines “sanger-tol/readmapping” ( Surana et al., 2023a), “sanger-tol/genomenote” ( Surana et al., 2023b), and “sanger-tol/blobtoolkit” ( Muffato et al., 2024). The pipeline sanger-tol/readmapping aligns the Hi-C reads with bwa-mem2 ( Vasimuddin et al., 2019) and combines the alignment files with SAMtools ( Danecek et al., 2021). The sanger-tol/genomenote pipeline transforms the Hi-C alignments into a contact map with BEDTools ( Quinlan & Hall, 2010) and the Cooler tool suite ( Abdennur & Mirny, 2020), which is then visualised with HiGlass ( Kerpedjiev et al., 2018). It also provides statistics about the assembly with the NCBI datasets ( Sayers et al., 2024) report, computes k-mer completeness and QV consensus quality values with FastK and MerquryFK, and a completeness assessment with BUSCO ( Manni et al., 2021).

The sanger-tol/blobtoolkit pipeline is a Nextflow port of the previous Snakemake Blobtoolkit pipeline ( Challis et al., 2020). It aligns the PacBio reads with SAMtools and minimap2 ( Li, 2018) and generates coverage tracks for regions of fixed size. In parallel, it queries the GoaT database ( Challis et al., 2023) to identify all matching BUSCO lineages to run BUSCO ( Manni et al., 2021). For the three domain-level BUSCO lineage, the pipeline aligns the BUSCO genes to the Uniprot Reference Proteomes database ( Bateman et al., 2023) with DIAMOND ( Buchfink et al., 2021) blastp. The genome is also split into chunks according to the density of the BUSCO genes from the closest taxonomically lineage, and each chunk is aligned to the Uniprot Reference Proteomes database with DIAMOND blastx. Genome sequences that have no hit are then chunked with seqtk and aligned to the NT database with blastn ( Altschul et al., 1990). All those outputs are combined with the blobtools suite into a blobdir for visualisation.

All three pipelines were developed using the nf-core tooling ( Ewels et al., 2020), use MultiQC ( Ewels et al., 2016), and make extensive use of the Conda package manager, the Bioconda initiative ( Grüning et al., 2018), the Biocontainers infrastructure ( da Veiga Leprevost et al., 2017), and the Docker ( Merkel, 2014) and Singularity ( Kurtzer et al., 2017) containerisation solutions.

Table 3 contains a list of relevant software tool versions and sources.

Table 3. Software tools: versions and sources.

Software
tool	Version	Source	
BEDTools	2.30.0	https://github.com/arq5x/bedtools2	
Blast	2.14.0	ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/executables/blast+/	
BlobToolKit	4.3.7	https://github.com/blobtoolkit/blobtoolkit	
BUSCO	5.4.3	https://gitlab.com/ezlab/busco	
BUSCO	5.4.3 and 5.5.0	https://gitlab.com/ezlab/busco	
bwa-mem2	2.2.1	https://github.com/bwa-mem2/bwa-mem2	
Cooler	0.8.11	https://github.com/open2c/cooler	
DIAMOND	2.1.8	https://github.com/bbuchfink/diamond	
fasta_
windows	0.2.4	https://github.com/tolkit/fasta_windows	
FastK	427104ea91c78c3b8b8b49f1a7d6bbeaa869ba1c	https://github.com/thegenemyers/FASTK	
GoaT CLI	0.2.5	https://github.com/genomehubs/goat-cli	
Hifiasm	0.16.1-r375	https://github.com/chhylp123/hifiasm	
HiGlass	1.11.6	https://github.com/higlass/higlass	
HiGlass	44086069ee7d4d3f6f3f0012569789ec138f42b84aa4435
7826c0b6753eb28de	https://github.com/higlass/higlass	
MerquryFK	d00d98157618f4e8d1a9190026b19b471055b22e	https://github.com/thegenemyers/MERQURY.FK	
MitoHiFi	2	https://github.com/marcelauliano/MitoHiFi	
MultiQC	1.14, 1.17, and 1.18	https://github.com/MultiQC/MultiQC	
NCBI Datasets	15.12.0	https://github.com/ncbi/datasets	
Nextflow	23.04.0-5857	https://github.com/nextflow-io/nextflow	
PretextView	0.2	https://github.com/wtsi-hpag/PretextView	
purge_dups	1.2.3	https://github.com/dfguan/purge_dups	
samtools	1.16.1, 1.17, and 1.18	https://github.com/samtools/samtools	
sanger-tol/
genomenote	1.1.1	https://github.com/sanger-tol/genomenote	
sanger-tol/
readmapping	1.2.1	https://github.com/sanger-tol/readmapping	
Seqtk	1.3	https://github.com/lh3/seqtk	
Singularity	3.9.0	https://github.com/sylabs/singularity	
TreeVal	1.0.0	https://github.com/sanger-tol/treeval	
YaHS	1.1a.2	https://github.com/c-zhou/yahs	

Wellcome Sanger Institute – Legal and Governance

The materials that have contributed to this genome note have been supplied by a Darwin Tree of Life Partner. The submission of materials by a Darwin Tree of Life Partner is subject to the ‘Darwin Tree of Life Project Sampling Code of Practice’, which can be found in full on the Darwin Tree of Life website here. By agreeing with and signing up to the Sampling Code of Practice, the Darwin Tree of Life Partner agrees they will meet the legal and ethical requirements and standards set out within this document in respect of all samples acquired for, and supplied to, the Darwin Tree of Life Project.

Further, the Wellcome Sanger Institute employs a process whereby due diligence is carried out proportionate to the nature of the materials themselves, and the circumstances under which they have been/are to be collected and provided for use. The purpose of this is to address and mitigate any potential legal and/or ethical implications of receipt and use of the materials as part of the research project, and to ensure that in doing so we align with best practice wherever possible. The overarching areas of consideration are:

• Ethical review of provenance and sourcing of the material

• Legality of collection, transfer and use (national and international)

Each transfer of samples is further undertaken according to a Research Collaboration Agreement or Material Transfer Agreement entered into by the Darwin Tree of Life Partner, Genome Research Limited (operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute), and in some circumstances other Darwin Tree of Life collaborators.

Acknowledgements

We thank Keith and Sue Obbard for permission to collect specimens.

Data availability

European Nucleotide Archive: Drosophila limbata. Accession number PRJEB68012; https://identifiers.org/ena.embl/PRJEB68012 ( Wellcome Sanger Institute, 2023). The genome sequence is released openly for reuse. The Drosophila limbata genome sequencing initiative is part of the Darwin Tree of Life (DToL) project. All raw sequence data and the assembly have been deposited in INSDC databases. The genome will be annotated using available RNA-Seq data and presented through the Ensembl pipeline at the European Bioinformatics Institute. Raw data and assembly accession identifiers are reported in Table 1.

Author information

Members of the Darwin Tree of Life Barcoding collective are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4893703.

Members of the Wellcome Sanger Institute Tree of Life Management, Samples and Laboratory team are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10066175.

Members of Wellcome Sanger Institute Scientific Operations: Sequencing Operations are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10043364.

Members of the Wellcome Sanger Institute Tree of Life Core Informatics team are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10066637.

Members of the Tree of Life Core Informatics collective are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5013541.

Members of the Darwin Tree of Life Consortium are listed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4783558.

10.21956/wellcomeopenres.24882.r94748
Reviewer response for version 1
Bayega Anthony 1Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1247-4911

1 Technical development, Canada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
17 9 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Bayega A
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Version 1recommendationapprove-with-reservations
Obbard et al. provide an overview description of the genome of Drosophila limbata which they sequenced and assembled. I commend them for their efforts. My comments follow below:

1. In the background, the authors provide a brief description of the organism and its geographical distribution.

2. In Figure 3, the label on the Y-axis which reads “ERR1220…” is completely meaningless. This should be changed to something meaningful to help the reader make sense of this figure.

3. The authors mention that ‘It aligns the PacBio reads with SAMtools and minimap2..’. For the sake of correctness, please verify that indeed SAMtools was used for alignment and if needed, please edit this statement to accurately and correctly reflect what was done and what was used.

4. there seems to be a small typing error where it says “taxonomically lineage, and …” Please check and correct that statement if needed.

Overall, the authors provide a high-quality genome and also assign much of it to chromosomes. Although much work remains to order the scaffolds and complete the gaps and also structurally and functionally annotate the genome, the current work will indeed be valuable to the whole community. I therefore recommend the indexing of this genome so that this resource becomes widely accessible to the scientific community.

Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Genomics and molecular biology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

10.21956/wellcomeopenres.24882.r94744
Reviewer response for version 1
Zhou Qingsong 1Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7312-1589

1 Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
2 9 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Zhou Q
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Version 1recommendationapprove
Obbard et al. present a genome assembly of  D. limbata using Pacific HIFI long reads. The background of the species  D. limbata is well described. Additionally, the chromosomes were scaffolded with Hi-C data into five autosomes and one sex chromosome (X). The genome size falls within the range of Drosophila genomes (130–257 Mb), and the scaffold N50 of 29.2 Mb indicates that the genome assembly is of high quality. The methodological aspects of this paper are described in detail.

However, I find the presentation of the Hi-C contact map in Figure 5 unclear, making it difficult to distinguish the five autosomes. Furthermore, it may be beneficial to combine Figures 2-4 into a single figure to enhance the manuscript's conciseness and clarity.

Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Entomolgy, genome, evolution

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

10.21956/wellcomeopenres.24882.r94745
Reviewer response for version 1
Wilding Craig 1Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5818-2706

1 Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
26 8 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Wilding C
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Version 1recommendationapprove
Obbard et al present an assembled genome sequence of D. limbata, one of approximately 30 Drosophila from the UK and Ireland (although it's distribution is wider). They provide a detailed (within the constraints of the DToL Genome Notes) introduction to this species and its ecology.

The methods are thorough and provide links to all tools used.

The final assembly is similar in size and completeness ((with a 97.4% BUSCO completeness) to other  Drosophila sequenced by the DToL. Drosophilid species have four pairs of chromosomes including the sex chromosomes (males being XY).

The 6 chromosomal psuedomolecules including the X chromosome that were scaffolded during this study do therefore not encapsulate the full typical karyotype of Drosophilids (although the authors report that the Y is likely in the unplaced contigs).

My only comments are:

1). The methods states that 'idDroLimb2 sample was weighed and dissected on dry ice'. What was the purpose of dissection here? It seems likely that the whole sample was homogenised and used for DNA extraction so why the dissection?

2). I was not clear on Figure 3 what is being shown. How do I discern the data for this species? And when the legend says 'sequences are coloured by Phylum, how many phyla are included? what is 'total' and what is 'no hit'? This is undoubtedly my unfamiliarity with this kind of plot but the other legends are so clear and explanatory, that this one stands out as unclear (at least to me).

3. Is the 'loss' of the Y chromosome to the unplaced contigs typical of other Drosophila assemblies or a peculiarity of this species? With the accumulation of  Drosophila sequences (including in DToL) can anything be done with the tools used to improve the likelihood that the Y is successfully 'pulled out'?

Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Genomics, population genetics, evolutionary biology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
==== Refs
Abdennur N Mirny LA : Cooler: scalable storage for Hi-C data and other genomically labeled arrays. Bioinformatics. 2020;36 (1 ):311–316. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz540 31290943
Allio R Schomaker-Bastos A Romiguier J : MitoFinder: efficient automated large-scale extraction of mitogenomic data in target enrichment phylogenomics. Mol Ecol Resour. 2020;20 (4 ):892–905. 10.1111/1755-0998.13160 32243090
Altschul SF Gish W Miller W : Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215 (3 ):403–410. 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 2231712
Bächli G : TaxoDros: the database on taxonomy of Drosophilidae.2024; [Accessed 29 May 2023]. Reference Source
Bächli G Viljoen F Andersson Escher S : The Drosophilidae (Diptera) of fennoscandia and denmark.BRILL,2004. 10.1163/9789047414681
Basden EB : XV.—the distribution and biology of Drosophilidæ (Diptera) in Scotland, including a new species of Drosophila. Trans R Soc Edinb. 1955;62 (3 ):603–654. 10.1017/S0080456800009406
Bateman A Martin MJ Orchard S : UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2023. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51 (D1 ):D523–D531. 10.1093/nar/gkac1052 36408920
Buchfink B Reuter K Drost HG : Sensitive protein alignments at Tree-of-Life scale using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2021;18 (4 ):366–368. 10.1038/s41592-021-01101-x 33828273
Challis R Kumar S Sotero-Caio C : Genomes on a Tree (GoaT): a versatile, scalable search engine for genomic and sequencing project metadata across the eukaryotic Tree of Life [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2023;8 :24. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.18658.1 36864925
Challis R Richards E Rajan J : BlobToolKit - interactive quality assessment of genome assemblies. G3 (Bethesda). 2020;10 (4 ):1361–1374. 10.1534/g3.119.400908 32071071
Chandler P : Checklist of Diptera of the British Isles.2023. Reference Source
Cheng H Concepcion GT Feng X : Haplotype-resolved de novo assembly using phased assembly graphs with hifiasm. Nat Methods. 2021;18 (2 ):170–175. 10.1038/s41592-020-01056-5 33526886
da Veiga Leprevost F Grüning BA Alves Aflitos S : BioContainers: an open-source and community-driven framework for software standardization. Bioinformatics. 2017;33 (16 ):2580–2582. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx192 28379341
Danecek P Bonfield JK Liddle J : Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. GigaScience. 2021;10 (2 ): giab008. 10.1093/gigascience/giab008 33590861
Denton A Oatley G Cornwell C : Sanger Tree of Life sample homogenisation: PowerMash. protocols.io. 2023a. 10.17504/protocols.io.5qpvo3r19v4o/v1
Denton A Yatsenko H Jay J : Sanger Tree of Life wet laboratory protocol collection V.1. protocols.io. 2023b. 10.17504/protocols.io.8epv5xxy6g1b/v1
Di Tommaso P Chatzou M Floden EW : Nextflow enables reproducible computational workflows. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35 (4 ):316–319. 10.1038/nbt.3820 28398311
Diesh C Stevens GJ Xie P : JBrowse 2: a modular genome browser with views of synteny and structural variation. Genome Biol. 2023;24 (1 ): 74. 10.1186/s13059-023-02914-z 37069644
do Amaral RJV Bates A Denton A : Sanger Tree of Life RNA extraction: automated MagMax TM mirVana. protocols.io. 2023. 10.17504/protocols.io.6qpvr36n3vmk/v1
Dyson-Hudson VR : Taxonomy and ecology of the British species of Drosophila. University of Oxford,1954. 10.5287/ora-eoyzjokk0
Ewels P Magnusson M Lundin S : MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics. 2016;32 (19 ):3047–3048. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw354 27312411
Ewels PA Peltzer A Fillinger S : The nf-core framework for community-curated bioinformatics pipelines. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38 (3 ):276–278. 10.1038/s41587-020-0439-x 32055031
GBIF Secretariat: Drosophila limbata occurrence download. gbif.org. 2024; [Accessed 26 April 2024]. 10.15468/dl.n9bmvm
Gillis JEM Hardy ICW : Nematode parasitism in a northern European drosophilid community. Entomol Exp Appl. 1997;84 (3 ):275–291. 10.1046/j.1570-7458.1997.00225.x
Grüning B Dale R Sjödin A : Bioconda: sustainable and comprehensive software distribution for the life sciences. Nat Methods. 2018;15 (7 ):475–476. 10.1038/s41592-018-0046-7 29967506
Guan D McCarthy SA Wood J : Identifying and removing haplotypic duplication in primary genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2020;36 (9 ):2896–2898. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa025 31971576
Harry E : PretextView (Paired Read Texture Viewer): a desktop application for viewing pretext contact maps. 2022; [Accessed 19 October 2022]. Reference Source
Hummel HK van Delden W Drent RH : Estimation of some population parameters of Drosophila limbata V. Roser in a greenhouse. Oecologia. 1979;41 (2 ):135–143. 10.1007/BF00344998 28308858
Jay J Yatsenko H Narváez-Gómez JP : Sanger Tree of Life sample preparation: triage and dissection. protocols.io. 2023. 10.17504/protocols.io.x54v9prmqg3e/v1
Kerpedjiev P Abdennur N Lekschas F : HiGlass: web-based visual exploration and analysis of genome interaction maps. Genome Biol. 2018;19 (1 ): 125. 10.1186/s13059-018-1486-1 30143029
Kurtzer GM Sochat V Bauer MW : Singularity: scientific containers for mobility of compute. PLoS One. 2017;12 (5 ): e0177459. 10.1371/journal.pone.0177459 28494014
Li H : Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2018;34 (18 ):3094–3100. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191 29750242
Manni M Berkeley MR Seppey M : BUSCO update: novel and streamlined workflows along with broader and deeper phylogenetic coverage for scoring of eukaryotic, prokaryotic, and viral genomes. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38 (10 ):4647–4654. 10.1093/molbev/msab199 34320186
Mercot H Defaye D Capy P : Alcohol tolerance, ADH activity, and ecological niche of Drosophila species. Evolution. 1994;48 (3 ):746–757. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb01358.x 28568255
Merkel D : Docker: lightweight Linux containers for consistent development and deployment. Linux J. 2014;2014 (239 ): 2. Reference Source
Muffato M Butt Z Challis R : sanger-tol/blobtoolkit: v0.3.0 – Poliwag.2024. 10.5281/zenodo.10649272
Neems RM Dooher K Butlin RK : Differences in male courtship song among the species of the quinaria group of Drosophila. J Insect Behav. 1997;10 (2 ):237–246. 10.1007/BF02765556
Offenberger M Klarenberg AJ : Attractiveness and exploitation of decaying herbage by Drosophila in temperate woodland: an experimental analysis. Oecologia. 1992;92 (2 ):183–187. 10.1007/BF00317362 28313049
Pointon DL Eagles W Sims Y : sanger-tol/treeval v1.0.0 – Ancient Atlantis.2023. 10.5281/zenodo.10047654
Quinlan AR Hall IM : BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics. 2010;26 (6 ):841–842. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033 20110278
Rao SSP Huntley MH Durand NC : A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell. 2014;159 (7 ):1665–1680. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.021 25497547
Rhie A McCarthy SA Fedrigo O : Towards complete and error-free genome assemblies of all vertebrate species. Nature. 2021;592 (7856 ):737–746. 10.1038/s41586-021-03451-0 33911273
Sayers EW Cavanaugh M Clark K : GenBank 2024 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024;52 (D1 ):D134–D137. 10.1093/nar/gkad903 37889039
Scott Chialvo CH White BE Reed LK : A phylogenetic examination of host use evolution in the quinaria and testacea groups of Drosophila. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2019;130 :233–243. 10.1016/j.ympev.2018.10.027 30366088
Strickland M Cornwell C Howard C : Sanger Tree of Life fragmented DNA clean up: manual SPRI. protocols.io. 2023a. 10.17504/protocols.io.kxygx3y1dg8j/v1
Strickland M Moll R Cornwell C : Sanger Tree of Life HMW DNA extraction: manual MagAttract. protocols.io. 2023b. 10.17504/protocols.io.6qpvr33novmk/v1
Surana P Muffato M Qi G : Sanger-tol/readmapping: sanger-tol/readmapping v1.1.0 - Hebridean Black (1.1.0). Zenodo. 2023a. 10.5281/zenodo.7755669
Surana P Muffato M Sadasivan Baby C : sanger-tol/genomenote (v1.0.dev). Zenodo. 2023b. 10.5281/zenodo.6785935
Todorovic M Sampaio F Howard C : Sanger Tree of Life HMW DNA fragmentation: diagenode Megaruptor ®3 for PacBio HiFi. protocols.io. 2023. 10.17504/protocols.io.8epv5x2zjg1b/v1
Uliano-Silva M Ferreira JGRN Krasheninnikova K : MitoHiFi: a python pipeline for mitochondrial genome assembly from PacBio high fidelity reads. BMC Bioinformatics. 2023;24 (1 ): 288. 10.1186/s12859-023-05385-y 37464285
van Alphen JJM Nordlander G Eijs I : Host habitat finding and host selection of the Drosophila parasitoid Leptopilina australis (Hymenoptera, Eucoilidae), with a comparison of the niches of European Leptopilina species. Oecologia. 1991;87 (3 ):324–329. 10.1007/BF00634586 28313257
Vasimuddin M Misra S Li H : Efficient architecture-aware acceleration of BWA-MEM for multicore systems. In: 2019 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS). IEEE,2019;314–324. 10.1109/IPDPS.2019.00041
Wellcome Sanger Institute: The genome sequence of a drosophilid fruit fly, Drosophila limbata von Roser 1840. European Nucleotide Archive, [dataset], accession number PRJEB68012.2023.
Zhou C McCarthy SA Durbin R : YaHS: yet another Hi-C Scaffolding tool. Bioinformatics. 2023;39 (1 ): btac808. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac808 36525368
