MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387307874 · doi:10.1101/2023.10.02.560517

Single-fly assemblies fill major phylogenomic gaps across the Drosophilidae Tree of Life

2023· preprint· en· W4387307874 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Kim, Hannah R. Gellert, Samuel H. Church, Anton Suvorov, Sean Anderson, Olga Barmina, Sofia G. Beskid, Aaron A. Comeault, K. Nicole Crown, Sarah E. Diamond, Steve Dorus, Takako Fujichika, James A. Hemker, Jan Hrček, Maaria Kankare, Toru Katoh, Karl N. Magnacca, Ryan A. Martin, Teruyuki Matsunaga, Matthew J. Medeiros, Danny E. Miller, Scott Pitnick, Sara De Simoni, Tessa E. Steenwinkel, Michele Schiffer, Zeeshan Ali Syed, Aya Takahashi, Kevin H.-C. Wei, Tsuya Yokoyama, Michael B. Eisen, Artyom Kopp, Daniel R. Matute, Darren J. Obbard, Patrick O’Grady, Donald K. Price, Masanori J. Toda, Thomas Werner, Dmitri A. Petrov

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Human Genome Research InstituteJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMichigan Technological UniversityNational Science FoundationCase Western Reserve UniversityStanford Research Computing Center, Stanford UniversityHuron Mountain Wildlife Foundation
KeywordsGenomeBiologyContigNanopore sequencingGenomicsEvolutionary biologySequence assemblyHybrid genome assemblyDNA sequencingComputational biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-read sequencing is driving rapid progress in genome assembly across all major groups of life, including species of the family Drosophilidae, a longtime model system for genetics, genomics, and evolution. We previously developed a cost-effective hybrid Oxford Nanopore (ONT) long-read and Illumina short-read sequencing approach and used it to assemble 101 drosophilid genomes from laboratory cultures, greatly increasing the number of genome assemblies for this taxonomic group. The next major challenge is to address the laboratory culture bias in taxon sampling by sequencing genomes of species that cannot easily be reared in the lab. Here, we build upon our previous methods to perform amplification-free ONT sequencing of single wild flies obtained either directly from the field or from ethanol-preserved specimens in museum collections, greatly improving the representation of lesser studied drosophilid taxa in whole-genome data. Using Illumina Novaseq X Plus and ONT P2 sequencers with R10.4.1 chemistry, we set a new benchmark for inexpensive hybrid genome assembly at US $150 per genome while assembling genomes from as little as 35 ng of genomic DNA from a single fly. We present 183 new genome assemblies for 179 species as a resource for drosophilid systematics, phylogenetics, and comparative genomics. Of these genomes, 62 are from pooled lab strains and 121 from single adult flies. Despite the sample limitations of working with small insects, most single-fly diploid assemblies are comparable in contiguity (>1Mb contig N50), completeness (>98% complete dipteran BUSCOs), and accuracy (>QV40 genome-wide with ONT R10.4.1) to assemblies from inbred lines. We present a well-resolved multi-locus phylogeny for 360 drosophilid and 4 outgroup species encompassing all publicly available (as of August 2023) genomes for this group. Finally, we present a Progressive Cactus whole-genome, reference-free alignment built from a subset of 298 suitably high-quality drosophilid genomes. The new assemblies and alignment, along with updated laboratory protocols and computational pipelines, are released as an open resource and as a tool for studying evolution at the scale of an entire insect family.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207