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. Hongfeng Chen
  9. Huan Liu
  10. Yang Liu

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Mosses comprise one of three lineages forming a 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 that is widespread in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere. We sequenced and de novo-assembled its genome using the 10X Genomics method. The genome comprises 385.2 Mbp, with a scaffold N50 of 45.8 Kbp. The assembly captured 87.2% of the 430 genes in the BUSCO Viridiplantae odb10 dataset. The newly generated F. antipyretica genome is the third moss genome, and the second seedless aquatic plant genome, to be sequenced and assembled to date.

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 published to 10.46471/gigabyte.8
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.29.069583v1 on bioRxiv