Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34076242›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2021

De novo genome assemblies of butterflies.

Emily A Ellis, Caroline G Storer, Akito Y Kawahara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Transposable element and host silencing activity in gigantic genomes.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Toward a genome sequence for every animal: Where are we now?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Emily A EllisMcGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, 3215 Hull Road, Gainesville, FL 32611-2710, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3343-0923
Caroline G StorerMcGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, 3215 Hull Road, Gainesville, FL 32611-2710, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0349-0653
Akito Y KawaharaMcGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, 3215 Hull Road, Gainesville, FL 32611-2710, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3724-4610

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe availability of thousands of genomes has enabled new advancements in biology. However, many genomes have not been investigated for their quality. Here we examine quality trends in a taxonomically diverse and well-known group, butterflies (Papilionoidea), and provide draft, de novo assemblies for all available butterfly genomes. Owing to massive genome sequencing investment and taxonomic curation, this is an excellent group to explore genome quality.

findingsWe provide de novo assemblies for all 822 available butterfly genomes and interpret their quality in terms of completeness and continuity. We identify the 50 highest quality genomes across butterflies and conclude that the ringlet, Aphantopus hyperantus, has the highest quality genome. Our post-processing of draft genome assemblies identified 118 butterfly genomes that should not be reused owing to contamination or extremely low quality. However, many draft genomes are of high utility, especially because permissibility of low-quality genomes is dependent on the objective of the study. Our assemblies will serve as a key resource for papilionid genomics, especially for researchers without computational resources.

conclusionsQuality metrics and assemblies are typically presented with annotated genome accessions but rarely with de novo genomes. We recommend that studies presenting genome sequences provide the assembly and some metrics of quality because quality will significantly affect downstream results. Transparency in quality metrics is needed to improve the field of genome science and encourage data reuse.

Indexed as

ButterfliesAnimalsChromosome MappingGenomeGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSequence Analysis, DNAaccessibilitygenomicslife sciencesopen dataPapilionoidea

Identifiers

PMID34076242
PMCPMC8170690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.