Draft genome of the aquatic moss Fontinalis antipyretica (Fontinalaceae, Bryophyta)

  1. Jin Yu
  2. Linzhou Li
  3. Sibo Wang
  4. Shanshan Dong
  5. Ziqiang Chen
  6. Nikisha Patel
  7. Bernard Goffinet
  8. Huan Liu
  9. Yang Liu

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Mosses compose one of the three lineages that form the sister group to extant vascular plants. Having emerged from an early split in the diversification of embryophytes, mosses may offer complementary insights into the evolution of traits following the transition to and colonization of land. Here, we report the draft nuclear genome of Fontinalis antipyretica (Fontinalaceae, Hypnales), a charismatic aquatic moss widespread in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere. We sequenced and de novo assembled its genome using the 10 × genomics method. The genome comprises 486.3 Mb, with a scaffold N50 of 38.8 kb. The assembly captured 89.4% of the 303 genes in the BUSCO eukaryote dataset. The newly generated F. antipyretica genome is the third genome of mosses, and the second genome for a seedless aquatic plant.

Article activity feed

  1. GigaByte

    Now published in Gigabyte doi: 10.46471/gigabyte.8

    Reviewer #1 : Review MS by Wei Zhao Data Release Checklist Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer Wei Zhao

    Is the language of sufficient quality? Yes Please add additional comments on language quality to clarify if needed
    Are all data available and do they match the descriptions in the paper? Yes Additional Comments
    Are the data and metadata consistent with relevant minimum information or reporting standards? See GigaDB checklists for examples http://gigadb.org/site/guide Yes Additional Comments
    Is the data acquisition clear, complete and methodologically sound? Yes Additional Comments
    Is there sufficient detail in the methods and data-processing steps to allow reproduction? Yes Additional Comments See attached PDF file Is there sufficient data validation and statistical analyses of data quality? No Additional Comments Check and filter potential contamination of the raw assembly. Is the validation suitable for this type of data? Yes Additional Comments But maybe no, see attached pdf Is there sufficient information for others to reuse this dataset or integrate it with other data? Yes Additional comments annotated on the paper and shared with the authors. Recommendation Major Revision

    Reviewer #2 : Review MS by Daniel Lang Data Release Checklist Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer Daniel Lang

    Is the language of sufficient quality? Yes Please add additional comments on language quality to clarify if needed
    Are all data available and do they match the descriptions in the paper? Yes Additional Comments
    Are the data and metadata consistent with relevant minimum information or reporting standards? See GigaDB checklists for examples http://gigadb.org/site/guide Yes Additional Comments
    Is the data acquisition clear, complete and methodologically sound? Yes Additional Comments
    Is there sufficient detail in the methods and data-processing steps to allow reproduction? Yes Additional Comments
    Is there sufficient data validation and statistical analyses of data quality? Yes Additional Comments There is a exceptionally high number of scaffolds for 10x, a bad BUSCO and a discrepancy between kmer <-> fcm&assembly size that is unusual. That would have been worthy of discussion. Is the validation suitable for this type of data? Yes Additional Comments
    Is there sufficient information for others to reuse this dataset or integrate it with other data? Yes Additional Comments
    Any Additional Overall Comments to the Author
    Recommendation Accept

  2. Version 1 published on bioRxiv