ArticleGigaScience2020
A highly contiguous genome assembly of the bat hawkmoth Hyles vespertilio (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae).
Article in GigaScience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene expansion in the hawkmothiScience · 2024Article
- Chromosomal-level Genome Assembly of the Coffee Bee Hawk Moth Reveals the Evolution of Chromosomes and the Molecular Basis of Distinct Phenotypes.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- High-quality haploid genomes corroborate 29 chromosomes and highly conserved synteny of genes in Hyles hawkmoths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae).BMC genomics · 2023Article
- Assembly of a Hybrid Formica aquilonia × F. polyctena Ant Genome From a Haploid Male.The Journal of heredity · 2022Article
- A highly contiguous genome assembly of the bat hawkmoth Hyles vespertilio (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae).GigaScience · 2020Article
- Advantages of an easy-to-use DNA extraction method for minimal-destructive analysis of collection specimens.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdapted to different ecological niches, moth species belonging to the Hyles genus exhibit a spectacular diversity of larval color patterns. These species diverged ∼7.5 million years ago, making this rather young genus an interesting system to study a wide range of questions including the process of speciation, ecological adaptation, and adaptive radiation.
resultsHere we present a high-quality genome assembly of the bat hawkmoth Hyles vespertilio, the first reference genome of a member of the Hyles genus. We generated 51× Pacific Biosciences long reads with an average read length of 8.9 kb. Pacific Biosciences reads longer than 4 kb were assembled into contigs, resulting in a 651.4-Mb assembly consisting of 530 contigs with an N50 value of 7.5 Mb. The circular mitochondrial contig has a length of 15,303 bp. The H. vespertilio genome is very repeat-rich and exhibits a higher repeat content (50.3%) than other Bombycoidea species such as Bombyx mori (45.7%) and Manduca sexta (27.5%). We developed a comprehensive gene annotation workflow to obtain consensus gene models from different evidence including gene projections, protein homology, transcriptome data, and ab initio predictions. The resulting gene annotation is highly complete with 94.5% of BUSCO genes being completely present, which is higher than the BUSCO completeness of the B. mori (92.2%) and M. sexta (90%) annotations.
conclusionsOur gene annotation strategy has general applicability to other genomes, and the H. vespertilio genome provides a valuable molecular resource to study a range of questions in this genus, including phylogeny, incomplete lineage sorting, speciation, and hybridization. A genome browser displaying the genome, alignments, and annotations is available at https://genome-public.pks.mpg.de/cgi-bin/hgTracks?db=HLhylVes1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.