The genome sequence of the Marbled Brown, Drymonia dodonaea (Denis & Schiffermüller), 1775 (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae)
Denise C. Wawman, Sarah Inwood, Kashif Zahoor, Alexandra Cerqueira De Araujo
TL;DR
This paper presents the genome sequence of the Marbled Brown moth, including two haplotypes and a mitochondrial genome, as part of a larger project to sequence species in Britain and Ireland.
Contribution
The paper provides a high-quality reference genome for Drymonia dodonaea, including chromosomal pseudomolecules and mitochondrial DNA.
Findings
The genome assembly includes two haplotypes with lengths of 330.51 and 331.17 megabases.
Haplotype 1 is scaffolded into 31 chromosomal pseudomolecules, including the Z sex chromosome.
The mitochondrial genome is 16.37 kilobases long and has been fully assembled.
Abstract
We present a genome assembly from an individual Drymonia dodonaea (Marbled Brown; Arthropoda; Insecta; Lepidoptera; Notodontidae). The assembly contains two haplotypes with total lengths of 330.51 megabases and 331.17 megabases. Most of haplotype 1 (99.89%) is scaffolded into 31 chromosomal pseudomolecules, including the Z sex chromosome. Haplotype 2 was assembled to scaffold level. The mitochondrial genome has also been assembled, with a length of 16.37 kilobases. This assembly was generated as part of the Darwin Tree of Life project, which produces reference genomes for eukaryotic species found in Britain and Ireland.
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6| Platform | PacBio HiFi | Hi-C |
|---|---|---|
|
| ilDryDodo1 | ilDryDodo1 |
|
| ||
|
| SAMEA114644434 | SAMEA114644434 |
|
| SAMEA114645038 | SAMEA114645038 |
|
| head and thorax | head and thorax |
|
| Revio | Illumina NovaSeq X |
|
| ERR14209121; ERR14209122 | ERR14224608 |
|
| 2.61 million | 1 004.20 million |
|
| 25.37 Gb | 151.63 Gb |
|
| ilDryDodo1.hap1.1 | ilDryDodo1.hap2.1 |
|
| GCA_965178025.1 | GCA_965177995.1 |
|
| chromosome | scaffold |
|
| 330.51 | 331.17 |
|
| 31 | - |
|
| 115 | 105 |
|
| 6.16 Mb | 5.84 Mb |
|
| 46 | 49 |
|
| 12.0 Mb | 12.1 Mb |
|
| 14.06 | - |
|
| Z | - |
|
| Mitochondrion: 16.37 kb | - |
| INSDC accession | Molecule | Length (Mb) | GC% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14.06 | 39 | |
| 2 | 13.94 | 39.50 | |
| 3 | 13.73 | 39.50 | |
| 4 | 13.61 | 39.50 | |
| 5 | 13.53 | 38.50 | |
| 6 | 13.03 | 39 | |
| 7 | 12.63 | 39 | |
| 8 | 12.53 | 38.50 | |
| 9 | 12.38 | 38.50 | |
| 10 | 12.37 | 39 | |
| 11 | 12.03 | 39 | |
| 12 | 12 | 39.50 | |
| 13 | 11.64 | 39.50 | |
| 14 | 11.26 | 39 | |
| 15 | 11.23 | 39 | |
| 16 | 11.14 | 39 | |
| 17 | 10.87 | 40 | |
| 18 | 10.67 | 40 | |
| 19 | 10.27 | 40.50 | |
| 20 | 9.84 | 39 | |
| 21 | 9.60 | 39.50 | |
| 22 | 8.50 | 40.50 | |
| 23 | 8.45 | 40 | |
| 24 | 8.04 | 40.50 | |
| 25 | 7.94 | 41 | |
| 26 | 7.92 | 40 | |
| 27 | 6.16 | 42.50 | |
| 28 | 5.92 | 41 | |
| 29 | 5.90 | 41 | |
| 30 | 5.40 | 41.50 | |
| Z | 13.57 | 39.50 |
| Measure | Value | Benchmark |
|---|---|---|
| EBP summary (haplotype 1) | 6.C.Q62 | 6.C.Q40 |
| Contig N50 length | 6.16 Mb | ≥ 1 Mb |
| Scaffold N50 length | 12 Mb | = chromosome N50 |
| Consensus quality (QV) | Haplotype 1: 62.2; haplotype 2: 62.1;
| ≥ 40 |
|
| Haplotype 1: 95.91%; Haplotype 2:
| ≥ 95% |
| BUSCO | C:98.7% [S:98.3%; D:0.4%]; F:0.2%;
| S > 90%; D < 5% |
| Percentage of assembly assigned to chromosomes | 99.89% | ≥ 90% |
- —Wellcome Trust
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy · Genetic diversity and population structure · Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Species taxonomy
Eukaryota; Opisthokonta; Metazoa; Eumetazoa; Bilateria; Protostomia; Ecdysozoa; Panarthropoda; Arthropoda; Mandibulata; Pancrustacea; Hexapoda; Insecta; Dicondylia; Pterygota; Neoptera; Endopterygota; Amphiesmenoptera; Lepidoptera; Glossata; Neolepidoptera; Heteroneura; Ditrysia; Obtectomera; Noctuoidea; Notodontidae; Notodontinae; Drymonia; Drymonia dodonaea (Denis & Schiffermüller), 1775 (NCBI:txid988176)
Background
The Marbled Brown, Drymonia dodonaea is a moth in the family Notodontidae. As its common name suggests, it is brown, with patterning similar to that seen in marble. It has a paler central band across its 16–20mm long forewings. The similar-looking Lunar Marbled Brown Drymonia ruficornis (Hufnagel) has a more distinct pale central band which is usually white or whitish with a distinctive black comma-shaped marking ( Waring et al., 2017).
The larvae are bluish-green with a brighter green dorsal stripe that is bordered by yellow lines. There is a yellowish-green lateral stipe, edged superiorly with a faint red line, following the line of the spiracles which have red dots. Below this line the body colour is more yellowish than above it ( Henwood et al., 2020).
In the United Kingdom, D. dodonaea has a single generation on the wing in May and June and into early July ( Waring et al., 2017). The larva feed on both Sessile Oak Quercus petraea and Pedunculate Oak Quercus robur, from late June to early September and pupate in a cocoon in the ground to overwinter as a pupa ( Henwood et al., 2020).
Drymonia dodonaea can be found across much of Europe between latitudes 40°N and 60°N ( GBIF Secretariat, 2023). In the UK, it can be locally common in oak woodlands as are north as western Scotland ( Skinner & Wilson, 2009; Waring et al., 2017), although like UK many moths, the population of Marbled Brown is decreasing ( Conrad et al., 2006).
We present a chromosomally complete genome sequence for Drymonia dodonaea, the Marbled Brown. The specimen used for sequencing was attracted to light from a mercury vapour lamp, in a rural garden, in the hamlet of Bratton, near Minehead in Somerset.
The assembly was produced using the Tree of Life pipeline from a specimen collected in Bratton, Somerset, United Kingdom ( Figure 1), as part of the Darwin Tree of Life project.
Photograph of the Drymonia dodonaea (ilDryDodo1) specimen from which samples were taken for genome sequencing.
Methods
Sample acquisition and DNA barcoding
The specimen used for genome sequencing was an adult Drymonia dodonaea (specimen ID Ox003328, ToLID ilDryDodo1; Figure 1), collected from Bratton, Somerset, United Kingdom (latitude 51.205, longitude –3.509) on 2022-06-03. The specimen was collected and identified by Denise Wawman (University of Oxford). Sample metadata were collected in line with the Darwin Tree of Life project standards described by Lawniczak et al. (2022).
The initial identification was verified by an additional DNA barcoding process according to the framework developed by Twyford et al. (2024). A small sample was dissected from the specimen and stored in ethanol, while the remaining parts were shipped on dry ice to the Wellcome Sanger Institute (WSI) (see the protocol). The tissue was lysed, the COI marker region was amplified by PCR, and amplicons were sequenced and compared to the BOLD database, confirming the species identification ( Crowley et al., 2023). Following whole genome sequence generation, the relevant DNA barcode region was also used alongside the initial barcoding data for sample tracking at the WSI ( Twyford et al., 2024). The standard operating procedures for Darwin Tree of Life barcoding are available on protocols.io.
Nucleic acid extraction
Protocols for high molecular weight (HMW) DNA extraction developed at the Wellcome Sanger Institute (WSI) Tree of Life Core Laboratory are available on protocols.io ( Howard et al., 2025). The ilDryDodo1 sample was weighed and triaged to determine the appropriate extraction protocol. Tissue from the head and thorax was homogenised by powermashing using a PowerMasher II tissue disruptor.
HMW DNA was extracted in the WSI Scientific Operations core using the Automated MagAttract v2 protocol. DNA was sheared into an average fragment size of 12–20 kb following the Megaruptor®3 for LI PacBio protocol. Sheared DNA was purified by automated SPRI (solid-phase reversible immobilisation). The concentration of the sheared and purified DNA was assessed using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer and Qubit Fluorometer using the Qubit dsDNA High Sensitivity Assay kit. Fragment size distribution was evaluated by running the sample on the FemtoPulse system. For this sample, the final post-shearing DNA had a Qubit concentration of 41.19 ng/μL and a yield of 1 935.93 ng, with a fragment size of 16.1 kb. The 260/280 spectrophotometric ratio was 2, and the 260/230 ratio was 2.92.
PacBio HiFi library preparation and sequencing
Library preparation and sequencing were performed at the WSI Scientific Operations core. Libraries were prepared using the SMRTbell Prep Kit 3.0 (Pacific Biosciences, California, USA), following the manufacturer’s instructions. The kit includes reagents for end repair/A-tailing, adapter ligation, post-ligation SMRTbell bead clean-up, and nuclease treatment. Size selection and clean-up were performed using diluted AMPure PB beads (Pacific Biosciences). DNA concentration was quantified using a Qubit Fluorometer v4.0 (ThermoFisher Scientific) and the Qubit 1X dsDNA HS assay kit. Final library fragment size was assessed with the Agilent Femto Pulse Automated Pulsed Field CE Instrument (Agilent Technologies) using the gDNA 55 kb BAC analysis kit.
The sample was sequenced on a Revio instrument (Pacific Biosciences). The prepared library was normalised to 2 nM, and 15 μL was used for making complexes. Primers were annealed and polymerases bound to generate circularised complexes, following the manufacturer’s instructions. Complexes were purified using 1.2X SMRTbell beads, then diluted to the Revio loading concentration (200–300 pM) and spiked with a Revio sequencing internal control. The sample was sequenced on a Revio 25M SMRT cell. The SMRT Link software (Pacific Biosciences), a web-based workflow manager, was used to configure and monitor the run and to carry out primary and secondary data analysis.
Hi-C
** Sample preparation and crosslinking **
The Hi-C sample was prepared from 20–50 mg of frozen tissue from the head and thorax of the ilDryDodo1 sample using the Arima-HiC v2 kit (Arima Genomics). Following the manufacturer’s instructions, tissue was fixed and DNA crosslinked using TC buffer to a final formaldehyde concentration of 2%. The tissue was homogenised using the Diagnocine Power Masher-II. Crosslinked DNA was digested with a restriction enzyme master mix, biotinylated, and ligated. Clean-up was performed with SPRISelect beads before library preparation. DNA concentration was measured with the Qubit Fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Qubit HS Assay Kit. The biotinylation percentage was estimated using the Arima-HiC v2 QC beads.
** Hi-C library preparation and sequencing **
Biotinylated DNA constructs were fragmented using a Covaris E220 sonicator and size selected to 400–600 bp using SPRISelect beads. DNA was enriched with Arima-HiC v2 kit Enrichment beads. End repair, A-tailing, and adapter ligation were carried out with the NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Prep Kit (New England Biolabs), following a modified protocol where library preparation occurs while DNA remains bound to the Enrichment beads. Library amplification was performed using KAPA HiFi HotStart mix and a custom Unique Dual Index (UDI) barcode set (Integrated DNA Technologies). Depending on sample concentration and biotinylation percentage determined at the crosslinking stage, libraries were amplified with 10 to 16 PCR cycles. Post-PCR clean-up was performed with SPRISelect beads. Libraries were quantified using the AccuClear Ultra High Sensitivity dsDNA Standards Assay Kit (Biotium) and a FLUOstar Omega plate reader (BMG Labtech).
Prior to sequencing, libraries were normalised to 10 ng/μL. Normalised libraries were quantified again and equimolar and/or weighted 2.8 nM pools. Pool concentrations were checked using the Agilent 4200 TapeStation (Agilent) with High Sensitivity D500 reagents before sequencing. Sequencing was performed using paired-end 150 bp reads on the Illumina NovaSeq X.
Genome assembly
Prior to assembly of the PacBio HiFi reads, a database of k-mer counts ( k = 31) was generated from the filtered reads using FastK. GenomeScope2 ( Ranallo-Benavidez et al., 2020) was used to analyse the k-mer frequency distributions, providing estimates of genome size, heterozygosity, and repeat content.
The HiFi reads were assembled using Hifiasm in Hi-C phasing mode ( Cheng et al., 2021; Cheng et al., 2022), producing two haplotypes. Haplotypic duplications were identified and removed using purge_dups ( Guan et al., 2020). Hi-C reads ( Rao et al., 2014) were mapped to the primary contigs using bwa-mem2 ( Vasimuddin et al., 2019). Contigs were further scaffolded with Hi-C data in YaHS ( Zhou et al., 2023), using the --break option for handling potential misassemblies. The scaffolded assemblies were evaluated using Gfastats ( Formenti et al., 2022), BUSCO ( Manni et al., 2021) and MERQURY.FK ( Rhie et al., 2020).
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.
Assembly curation
The assembly was decontaminated using the Assembly Screen for Cobionts and Contaminants ( ASCC) pipeline. TreeVal was used to generate the flat files and maps for use in curation. Manual curation was conducted primarily in PretextView and HiGlass ( Kerpedjiev et al., 2018). Scaffolds were visually inspected and corrected as described by Howe et al. (2021). The curation process is documented at https://gitlab.com/wtsi-grit/rapid-curation. PretextSnapshot was used to generate a Hi-C contact map of the final assembly.
Assembly quality assessment
The Merqury.FK tool ( Rhie et al., 2020) was run in a Singularity container ( Kurtzer et al., 2017) to evaluate k-mer completeness and assembly quality for both haplotypes using the k-mer databases ( k = 31) computed prior to genome assembly. The analysis outputs included assembly QV scores and completeness statistics.
The genome was analysed using the BlobToolKit pipeline, a Nextflow implementation of the earlier Snakemake version ( Challis et al., 2020). The pipeline aligns PacBio reads using minimap2 ( Li, 2018) and SAMtools ( Danecek et al., 2021) to generate coverage tracks. It runs BUSCO ( Manni et al., 2021) using lineages identified from NCBI Taxonomy ( Schoch et al., 2020). For the three domain-level lineages, BUSCO genes are aligned to the UniProt Reference Proteomes database ( Bateman et al., 2023) using DIAMOND blastp ( Buchfink et al., 2021). The genome is divided into chunks based on the density of BUSCO genes from the closest taxonomic lineage, and each chunk is aligned to the UniProt Reference Proteomes database with DIAMOND blastx. Sequences without hits are chunked using seqtk and aligned to the NT database with blastn ( Altschul et al., 1990). The BlobToolKit suite consolidates all outputs into a blobdir for visualisation. The BlobToolKit pipeline was developed using nf-core tooling ( Ewels et al., 2020) and MultiQC ( Ewels et al., 2016), with package management via Conda and Bioconda ( Grüning et al., 2018), and containerisation through Docker ( Merkel, 2014) and Singularity ( Kurtzer et al., 2017).
Genome sequence report
Sequence data
PacBio sequencing of the Drymonia dodonaea specimen generated 25.37 Gb (gigabases) from 2.61 million reads, which were used to assemble the genome. GenomeScope2.0 analysis estimated the haploid genome size at 331.01 Mb, with a heterozygosity of 0.15% and repeat content of 25.72% ( Figure 2). These estimates guided expectations for the assembly. Based on the estimated genome size, the sequencing data provided approximately 75× coverage. Hi-C sequencing produced 151.63 Gb from 1 004.20 million reads, which were used to scaffold the assembly. Table 1 summarises the specimen and sequencing details.
Frequency distribution of k-mers generated using GenomeScope2.The plot shows observed and modelled k-mer spectra, providing estimates of genome size, heterozygosity, and repeat content based on unassembled sequencing reads.
Assembly statistics
The genome was assembled into two haplotypes using Hi-C phasing. Haplotype 1 was curated to chromosome level, while haplotype 2 was assembled to scaffold level. The final assembly has a total length of 330.51 Mb in 46 scaffolds, with gaps, and a scaffold N50 of 12.0 Mb ( Table 2).
Most of the assembly sequence (99.89%) was assigned to 31 chromosomal-level scaffolds, representing autosomes and the Z sex chromosome. These chromosome-level scaffolds, confirmed by Hi-C data, are named according to ( Figure 3; Table 3).
Hi-C contact map of the Drymonia dodonaea genome assembly.Assembled chromosomes are shown in order of size and labelled along the axes. The plot was generated using PretextSnapshot.
Table 3.: Chromosomal pseudomolecules in the haplotype 1 genome assembly of Drymonia dodonaea ilDryDodo1.
The mitochondrial genome was also assembled. This sequence is included as a contig in the multifasta file of the genome submission and as a standalone record.
For haplotype 1, the estimated QV is 62.2, and for haplotype 2, 62.1. When the two haplotypes are combined, the assembly achieves an estimated QV of 62.1. The k-mer completeness is 95.91% for haplotype 1, 95.91% for haplotype 2, and 99.73% for the combined haplotypes ( Figure 4).
Evaluation of k-mer completeness using MerquryFK.This plot illustrates the recovery of k‐mers from the original read data in the final assemblies. The horizontal axis represents k‐mer multiplicity, and the vertical axis shows the number of k‐mers. The black curve represents k‐mers that appear in the reads but are not assembled. The green curve corresponds to k‐mers shared by both haplotypes, and the red and blue curves show k‐mers found only in one of the haplotypes.
BUSCO analysis using the lepidoptera_odb10 reference set ( n = 5 286) identified 98.7% of the expected gene set (single = 98.3%, duplicated = 0.4%) for haplotype 1. The snail plot in Figure 5 summarises the scaffold length distribution and other assembly statistics for haplotype 1. The blob plot in Figure 6 shows the distribution of scaffolds by GC proportion and coverage for haplotype 1.
Assembly metrics for ilDryDodo1.hap1.1.The BlobToolKit snail plot provides an overview of assembly metrics and BUSCO gene completeness. The circumference represents the length of the whole genome sequence, and the main plot is divided into 1,000 bins around the circumference. The outermost blue tracks display the distribution of GC, AT, and N percentages across the bins. Scaffolds are arranged clockwise from longest to shortest and are depicted in dark grey. The longest scaffold is indicated by the red arc, and the deeper orange and pale orange arcs represent the N50 and N90 lengths. A light grey spiral at the centre shows the cumulative scaffold count on a logarithmic scale. A summary of complete, fragmented, duplicated, and missing BUSCO genes in the set is presented at the top right. An interactive version of this figure can be accessed on the BlobToolKit viewer.
BlobToolKit GC-coverage plot for ilDryDodo1.hap1.1.Blob plot showing sequence coverage (vertical axis) and GC content (horizontal axis). The circles represent scaffolds, with the size proportional to scaffold length and the colour representing phylum membership. The histograms along the axes display the total length of sequences distributed across different levels of coverage and GC content. An interactive version of this figure is available on the BlobToolKit viewer.
Table 4 lists the assembly metric benchmarks adapted from Rhie et al. (2021) the Earth BioGenome Project Report on Assembly Standards September 2024. The EBP metric, calculated for the haplotype 1, is 6.C.Q62, meeting the recommended reference standard.
Table 4.: Earth Biogenome Project summary metrics for the Drymonia dodonaea assembly.
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. 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 materialLegality 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.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Allio R Schomaker-Bastos A Romiguier J : Mito Finder: 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 PMC 7497042 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 2Altschul SF Gish W Miller W : Basic Local Alignment Search Tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3):403–410. 10.1016/S 0022-2836(05)80360-2 2231712 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3Bateman A Martin MJ Orchard S : Uni Prot: the Universal Protein Knowledgebase in 2023. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51(D 1):D 523–D 531. 10.1093/nar/gkac 1052 36408920 PMC 9825514 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4Buchfink B Reuter K Drost HG : Sensitive protein alignments at Tree-of-Life scale using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2021;18(4):366–368. 10.1038/s 41592-021-01101-x 33828273 PMC 8026399 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 5Challis R Richards E Rajan J : Blob Tool Kit – interactive quality assessment of genome assemblies. G 3 (Bethesda). 2020;10(4):1361–1374. 10.1534/g 3.119.400908 32071071 PMC 7144090 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 6Cheng 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/s 41592-020-01056-5 33526886 PMC 7961889 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 7Cheng H Jarvis ED Fedrigo O : Haplotype-resolved assembly of diploid genomes without parental data. Nat Biotechnol. 2022;40(9):1332–1335. 10.1038/s 41587-022-01261-x 35332338 PMC 9464699 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 8Conrad KF Warren MS Fox R : Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biol Conserv. 2006;132(3):279–291. 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.020 · doi ↗