The genome sequence of the Gorse Wanderer, Brachmia blandella (Fabricius, 1798) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae)
Douglas Boyes, Clare Boyes, Ricardo Rodriguez-de-la-vega, Wai Lok So, Will Nash
TL;DR
This paper provides the genome sequence of the Gorse Wanderer moth, including its chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA, as part of a larger project to sequence species from Britain and Ireland.
Contribution
The study presents a high-quality genome assembly of Brachmia blandella, including sex chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA.
Findings
The genome assembly is 498.99 megabases long, with 96.45% scaffolded into 31 chromosomal pseudomolecules.
The mitochondrial genome is 15.62 kilobases in length and has been fully assembled.
The genome data is part of the Darwin Tree of Life project focusing on species from Britain and Ireland.
Abstract
We present a genome assembly from an individual female Brachmia blandella (Gorse Wanderer, Gorse Crest; Arthropoda; Insecta; Lepidoptera; Gelechiidae). The genome sequence has a total length of 498.99 megabases. Most of the assembly (96.45%) is scaffolded into 31 chromosomal pseudomolecules, including the W and Z sex chromosomes. The mitochondrial genome has also been assembled, with a length of 15.62 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 |
|---|---|---|
|
| ilBraBlan1 | ilBraBlan2 |
|
| NHMUK014584841 | |
|
| SAMEA7701511 | SAMEA115574999 |
|
| SAMEA7701693 | SAMEA115575154 |
|
| whole organism | whole organism |
|
| Sequel IIe | Illumina NovaSeq X |
|
| ERR12370409 | ERR13621414 |
|
| 2.83 million | 787.23 million |
|
| 26.80 Gb | 118.87 Gb |
|
| ilBraBlan1.1 |
|
| GCA_965199015.1 |
|
| GCA_965198705.1 |
|
| chromosome |
|
| 498.99 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 1 464 |
|
| 0.76 Mb |
|
| 500 |
|
| 16.58 Mb |
|
| W and Z |
|
| Mitochondrion: 15.62 kb |
| INSDC
| Molecule | Length
| GC% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21.61 | 36.50 | |
| 2 | 20.55 | 36.50 | |
| 3 | 19.27 | 36.50 | |
| 4 | 19.11 | 36.50 | |
| 5 | 18.94 | 36.50 | |
| 6 | 18.39 | 36.50 | |
| 7 | 18.30 | 36 | |
| 8 | 17.97 | 36.50 | |
| 9 | 17.91 | 36 | |
| 10 | 17.38 | 36.50 | |
| 11 | 17.10 | 36 | |
| 12 | 16.99 | 36.50 | |
| 13 | 16.89 | 36 | |
| 14 | 16.58 | 36.50 | |
| 15 | 16.29 | 36 | |
| 16 | 15.73 | 36.50 | |
| 17 | 15.62 | 36 | |
| 18 | 15.45 | 36.50 | |
| 19 | 15.27 | 37 | |
| 20 | 13.79 | 37 | |
| 21 | 12.28 | 36.50 | |
| 22 | 12.06 | 36.50 | |
| 23 | 11.93 | 37 | |
| 24 | 10.15 | 36.50 | |
| 25 | 9.62 | 36.50 | |
| 26 | 9.50 | 38 | |
| 27 | 8.78 | 38.50 | |
| 28 | 8.74 | 37 | |
| 29 | 8.18 | 37.50 | |
| W | 14.52 | 37 | |
| Z | 26.39 | 36 |
| Measure | Value | Benchmark |
|---|---|---|
| EBP summary (primary) | 5.C.Q56 | 6.C.Q40 |
| Contig N50 length | 0.76 Mb | ≥ 1 Mb |
| Scaffold N50 length | 16.58 Mb | = chromosome N50 |
| Consensus quality (QV) | Primary: 56.8; alternate: 58.0; combined: 57.5 | ≥ 40 |
|
| Primary: 75.83%; alternate: 69.04%; combined: 98.48% | ≥ 95% |
| BUSCO | C:96.9% [S:94.8%; D:2.1%]; F:0.6%; M:2.5%; n:5 286 | S > 90%; D < 5% |
| Percentage of
| 96.45% | ≥ 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 · Plant and animal studies
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; Gelechioidea; Gelechiidae; Dichomeridinae; Brachmia; Brachmia blandella (Fabricius, 1798) (NCBI:txid1280453)
Background
Brachmia blandella, The Gorse Wanderer, is a micro-moth in the family Gelechiidae. It can be found in a range of habitats including grasslands, gardens, and woodlands. It is common in most of England and is local in Wales ( Sterling et al., 2023). It occurs throughout Europe ( GBIF Secretariat, 2025).
The moth is very small (forewing length 5–6.5 mm) with a yellowish-brown forewing with some black marks ( Sterling et al., 2023). The larvae feed in a slender silken tube, mainly on withered gorse flowers ( Ulex europaeus), but sometimes on Cirsium palustre seedheads, and very occasionally in galls on Abies grandis ( Emmet & Langmaid, 2002). The larvae pupate in a flimsy cocoon, which incorporates frass and gorse fragments. The moth flies between late June and early August, and readily comes to light ( Langmaid et al., 2018).
We present a chromosome-level genome sequence for Brachmia blandella, the first high-quality genome for the genus Brachmia and one of 24 genomes available for the family Gelechiidae as of September 2025 (data obtained via NCBI datasets, O’Leary et al., 2024). The assembly was produced using the Tree of Life pipeline from a specimen collected in Wytham Woods, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom ( Figure 1).
Photograph of the Brachmia blandella (ilBraBlan1) specimen used for genome sequencing.
Methods
Sample acquisition and DNA barcoding
The specimen used for genome sequencing was an adult female Brachmia blandella (specimen ID Ox000649, ToLID ilBraBlan1; Figure 1), collected from Wytham Woods, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom (latitude 51.772, longitude –1.338) on 2020-07-20. The specimen was collected and identified by Douglas Boyes (University of Oxford). A second specimen was used for Hi-C sequencing (specimen ID NHMUK014584841, ToLID ilBraBlan2). It was collected from the Natural History Museum Wildlife Garden, London, UK (latitude 51.5, longitude –0.18) on 2022-06-23. The specimen was collected and identified by David Lees. For the Darwin Tree of Life sampling and metadata approach, refer to 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 ilBraBlan1 sample was weighed and triaged to determine the appropriate extraction protocol. Tissue from the whole organism was homogenised by powermashing using a PowerMasher II tissue disruptor. HMW DNA was extracted 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.
HMW DNA was extracted in the WSI Scientific Operations core using the Automated MagAttract v2 protocol. We used centrifuge-mediated fragmentation to produce DNA fragments in the 8–10 kb range, following the Covaris g-TUBE protocol for ultra-low input (ULI). 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.
PacBio HiFi library preparation and sequencing
Library preparation and sequencing were performed at the WSI Scientific Operations core. Prior to library preparation, the DNA was fragmented to ~10 kb. Ultra-low-input (ULI) libraries were prepared using the PacBio SMRTbell® Express Template Prep Kit 2.0 and gDNA Sample Amplification Kit. Samples were normalised to 20 ng DNA. Single-strand overhang removal, DNA damage repair, and end-repair/A-tailing were performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, followed by adapter ligation. A 0.85× pre-PCR clean-up was carried out with Promega ProNex beads.
The DNA was evenly divided into two aliquots for dual PCR (reactions A and B), both following the manufacturer’s protocol. A 0.85× post-PCR clean-up was performed with ProNex beads. DNA concentration was measured using a Qubit Fluorometer v4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) with the Qubit HS Assay Kit, and fragment size was assessed on an Agilent Femto Pulse Automated Pulsed Field CE Instrument (Agilent Technologies) using the gDNA 55 kb BAC analysis kit. PCR reactions A and B were then pooled, ensuring a total mass of ≥500 ng in 47.4 μl.
The pooled sample underwent another round of DNA damage repair, end-repair/A-tailing, and hairpin adapter ligation. A 1× clean-up was performed with ProNex beads, followed by DNA quantification using the Qubit and fragment size analysis using the Agilent Femto Pulse. Size selection was performed on the Sage Sciences PippinHT system, with target fragment size determined by Femto Pulse analysis (typically 4–9 kb). Size-selected libraries were cleaned with 1.0× ProNex beads and normalised to 2 nM before sequencing.
The sample was sequenced using the Sequel IIe system (Pacific Biosciences, California, USA). The concentration of the library loaded onto the Sequel IIe was in the range 40–135 pM. The SMRT link software, a PacBio web-based end-to-end workflow manager, was used to set-up and monitor the run, and to perform primary and secondary analysis of the data upon completion.
Hi-C
** Sample preparation and crosslinking **
The Hi-C sample was prepared from 20–50 mg of frozen tissue from the ilBraBlan2 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 10–16 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 ( Cheng et al., 2021) with the --primary option. The Hi-C reads ( Rao et al., 2014) were mapped to the primary contigs using bwa-mem2 ( Vasimuddin et al., 2019), and the contigs were scaffolded in YaHS ( Zhou et al., 2023) with 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). Manual corrections included 141 breaks and 189 joins. 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 the primary and alternate 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 the 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 containerisation through Docker ( Merkel, 2014) and Singularity ( Kurtzer et al., 2017).
Genome sequence report
Sequence data
PacBio sequencing of the Brachmia blandella specimen generated 26.80 Gb (gigabases) from 2.83 million reads, which were used to assemble the genome. GenomeScope2.0 analysis estimated the haploid genome size at 406.50 Mb, with a heterozygosity of 1.82% and repeat content of 33.53% ( Figure 2). These estimates guided expectations for the assembly. Based on the estimated genome size, the sequencing data provided approximately 42× coverage. Hi-C sequencing produced 118.87 Gb from 787.23 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 primary haplotype was assembled, and contigs corresponding to an alternate haplotype were also deposited in INSDC databases. The final assembly has a total length of 498.99 Mb in 500 scaffolds, with 964 gaps, and a scaffold N50 of 16.58 Mb ( Table 2).
Most of the assembly sequence (96.45%) was assigned to 31 chromosomal-level scaffolds, representing 29 autosomes and the W and Z sex chromosomes. These chromosome-level scaffolds, confirmed by Hi-C data, are named according to size ( Figure 3; Table 3).
Hi-C contact map of the Brachmia blandella 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 primary genome assembly of Brachmia blandella ilBraBlan1.
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.
The combined primary and alternate assemblies achieve an estimated QV of 57.5. The k-mer completeness is 75.83% for the primary assembly, 69.04% for the alternate haplotype, and 98.48% for the combined assemblies ( 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 v.5.7.1 analysis using the lepidoptera_odb10 reference set ( n = 5 286) identified 96.9% of the expected gene set (single = 94.8%, duplicated = 2.1%). The snail plot in Figure 5 summarises the scaffold length distribution and other assembly statistics for the primary assembly. The blob plot in Figure 6 shows the distribution of scaffolds by GC proportion and coverage.
Assembly metrics for ilBraBlan1.1.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 lepidoptera_odb10 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 ilBraBlan1.1.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 primary assembly, is 5.C.Q56.
Table 4.: Earth Biogenome Project summary metrics for the Brachmia blandella 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 ↗
- 7Crowley L Allen H Barnes I : A sampling strategy for genome sequencing the British terrestrial arthropod fauna [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2023;8:123. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.18925.1 37408610 PMC 10318377 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 8Danecek P Bonfield JK Liddle J : Twelve years of SA Mtools and BC Ftools. Giga Science. 2021;10(2): giab 008. 10.1093/gigascience/giab 008 33590861 PMC 7931819 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗