Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Low coverage sequencing of three echinoderm genomes: the brittle star Ophionereis fasciata, the sea star Patiriella regularis, and the sea cucumber Australostichopus mollis

  • Kyle A. Long1,
  • Carlos W. Nossa2,
  • Mary A. Sewell3,
  • Nicholas H. Putnam2 and
  • Joseph F. Ryan1, 4Email author
GigaScience20165:20

DOI: 10.1186/s13742-016-0125-6

Received: 21 October 2015

Accepted: 29 April 2016

Published: 10 May 2016

Abstract

Background

There are five major extant groups of Echinodermata: Crinoidea (feather stars and sea lillies), Ophiuroidea (brittle stars and basket stars), Asteroidea (sea stars), Echinoidea (sea urchins, sea biscuits, and sand dollars), and Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers). These animals are known for their pentaradial symmetry as adults, unique water vascular system, mutable collagenous tissues, and endoskeletons of high magnesium calcite. To our knowledge, the only echinoderm species with a genome sequence available to date is Strongylocentrotus pupuratus (Echinoidea). The availability of additional echinoderm genome sequences is crucial for understanding the biology of these animals.

Findings

Here we present assembled draft genomes of the brittle star Ophionereis fasciata, the sea star Patiriella regularis, and the sea cucumber Australostichopus mollis from Illumina sequence data with coverages of 12.5x, 22.5x, and 21.4x, respectively.

Conclusions

These data provide a resource for mining gene superfamilies, identifying non-coding RNAs, confirming gene losses, and designing experimental constructs. They will be important comparative resources for future genomic studies in echinoderms.

Keywords

Echinoderms Genome Brittle star Sea star Sea cucumber

Data description

Echinodermata consists of five classes: Crinoidea (feather stars and sea lillies), Ophiuroidea (brittle stars and basket stars), Asteroidea (sea stars), Echinoidea (sea urchins, sea biscuits, and sand dollars), and Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers). These animals have a rich fossil record, unique biomechanical properties, experimentally tractable embryos, and as such have been a favorite subject of study for more than 150 years. Along with Hemichordata, Echinodermata form a clade called Ambulacraria that are the sister group of Chordata, which include vertebrates.

Echinoderms are easily recognized due to striking synapomorphies. The most obvious is their pentaradial (five-fold) body symmetry that is characteristic of adults (earlier stages exhibit bilateral symmetry). They have a unique water vascular system, which is characterized by canals connecting small tube feet on the lateral side of the animals. The water vascular system is used for essential functions such as feeding, locomotion, waste disposal, and respiration. The “spiny skin” from which these animals get their name is an endoskeleton made up of calcareous plates called ossicles that is composed of high magnesium calcite formed as solid test, plates or ossicles depending on the class of echinoderms. Lastly, the ossicles are connected by ligaments made of collagen that are normally rigid, but may become flexible upon various neuronal stimuli.

The vast majority of genomic work thus far has focused on the classic developmental model, the sea urchin Stronglycentrotus purpuratus [1]. The genome of this sea urchin has produced many important findings of great interest, including the discovery of a rearrangement event in evolution that led to an unusual Hox cluster organization [2], a well-characterized gene network for the specification of endoderm and mesoderm [3], and insight into the effect of ocean acidification on biomineralization [4]. More recently the genomes of the sea star Patiria miniata, the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus, the sea cucumber Parastichopus parvimensis, and the brittle star Ophiothrix spiculata have been made available in Echinobase [5].

Here we provide genome sequences from species within three different echinoderm clades: Australostichopus mollis, commonly known as the brown sea cucumber (Fig. 1a), the brittle star Ophionereis fasciata (Fig. 1b), and Patiriella regularis, known as the New Zealand common cushion star (Fig. 1c). These species can be found in the shallow waters surrounding New Zealand.
Fig. 1

Photos of the echinoderm species whose genomes were sequenced in this study (a) Australostichopus mollis, commonly known as the brown sea cucumber; (b) the brittle star Ophionereis fasciata (b), and Patiriella regularis, known as the New Zealand common cushion star. Photo credits: (a) John A. Starmer, (b) Jennifer Howe, Victoria University of Wellington, and (c) username kiwi_kid on flickr (http://tinyurl.com/pregularis)

These data can be used for the gene family phylogenetic analyses, domain/gene losses, and presence of small non-coding RNAs among other applications (e.g., [6]). They will be particularly useful in a comparative framework with existing Echinoderm genomes, for example to identify highly conserved non-coding regions. Finally, these data will be a key resource for labs working on these animals in the lab or in the field (e.g., designing markers, probes, and genome-editing constructs).

Sample preparation and sequencing

Raw sequence data for all three species were produced from a single male, a single female, and the offspring of these two adults (Additional file 1: Table S1). For each individual sequenced, reads were barcoded and raw reads were submitted to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) separately (Additional file 2: Table S2). This sequencing strategy was originally used in order to employ a genetic mapping approach to genome assembly [7], and is not ideal for the standard de novo assembly strategy described herein. Nevertheless, when it became apparent that genetic mapping approach would not be feasible due to personnel, we applied a more traditional approach, and generated a useful set of data.

Parental tissue and larvae from each species were stored in ethanol prior to DNA extraction. DNA was extracted using Zymo DNA clean kit and was used to prepare Nextera libraries for 2 × 100 PE (paired end) sequencing on Illumina HiSeq2000 at BGI Shenzhen.

Assembly

For all steps of the assembly, all reads from each species were pooled (i.e., 2 parents and offspring). We used ALLPATHS-LG v44837 [8] to correct errors in the raw reads. We used Cutadapt v1.4.2 [9] to remove adapter sequences. We assembled these data using three assemblers: SOAPdenovo2 r2.04 [10], ABySS 3.81 [11], and Platanus 1.1.2 [12]. For each program we used a range of k-mer values: 31, 39, 45, 55, 63 for SOAP and ABySS, and 32, 39, 45, 55, 64 for Platanus. This provided a total of 15 assemblies for each organism. Each assembly/k-mer combination was evaluated using N50 values and number of conserved eukaryotic genes recovered by CEGMA 2.4 [13]. In all cases, SOAPdenovo assemblies were deemed superior to those produced by ABySS and Platanus (Table 1). The sequences represent coverages of 12.5x, 22.5x, and 21.4x for the brittle star, sea star, and sea cucumber, respectively.
Table 1

N50 values and CEGMA scores for each Assembly

Species

Assembler

K-mer Value

N50 (bp)

# Contigs

CEGMA Score (Partial/Complete)

O. fasciata

SOAPdenovo

31

484

3,968,282

69/16

39

451

4,740,140

69/17

45

501

4,814,066

71/20

55

449

5,961,782

63/9

63

528

4,184,863

57/5

ABySS

31

70

32,912,859

34/6

39

99

24,109,265

32/1

45

116

19,642,981

26/1

55

146

18,334,263

0/0

63

166

13,153,732

0/0

Platanus

32

103

126

0/0

39

104

129

0/0

45

108

119

0/0

55

105

130

0/0

64

111

119

0/0

P. regularis

SOAPdenovo

31

1383

19,728

1/0

39

469

2,348,237

17/1

45

488

2,596,707

15/0

55

470

3,424,052

22/1

63

557

3,006,458

50/2

ABySS

31

70

14,653,947

12/1

39

96

11,632,456

14/2

45

116

9,818,773

15/3

55

158

6,986,935

22/3

63

191

5,068,075

19/4

Platanus

32

155

1,923,405

0/0

39

157

2,475,110

0/0

45

161

2,814,106

0/0

55

158

3,044,990

0/0

64

143

3,092,862

0/0

A. mollis

SOAPdenovo

31

847

2,132,880

77/16

39

564

3,162,372

62/12

45

577

3,457,710

66/13

55

475

4,839,379

66/17

63

626

3,712,641

87/18

ABySS

31

76

19,911,844

44/5

39

104

15,084,417

48/5

45

127

12,518,443

52/7

55

171

8,798,225

42/5

63

204

6,232,955

32/0

Platanus

32

214

2,653,880

0/0

39

182

3,763,387

0/0

45

164

4,653,306

0/0

55

104

102

0/0

64

106

99

0/0

Assemblies deemed to be the best for each species based on N50 and CEGMA scores are in bold and were used for all downstream analyses

Gene prediction

We used Augustus v3.0.3 [14] to generate ab initio gene predictions for the best assemblies of each of the echinoderm species. We created a training set with the Strongylocentrotus purpuratus v3.1 scaffolds and corresponding predicted gene models from Echinobase [5]. We used “generic,” “human,” and the custom model “strongylocentrotus_purpuratus” as values for the -species parameter. To compare the three different sets of gene predictions we BLASTed both human and S. purpuratus protein models against the protein predictions from Augustus using BLASTP v2.2.31+ [15] with an E-value cutoff of 1e-6 and limiting to a single target sequence (blastp -query query.fa -db aug.fa -evalue 1e-6 -outfmt 6 -max_target_seqs 1). For all species BLAST searches against the Augustus protein sequences generated with the custom S. purpuratus model resulted in the most hits (Additional file 3: Table S3). We therefore chose these predictions as our final sets.

We generated 49,301 A. mollis, 102,838 O. fasciata, and 1135 P. regularis gene predictions (Additional file 4: Table S4). In the case of A. mollis and O. casciata these numbers are substantially higher than the 22,709 published S. purpuratus gene models. The high number in A. mollis and O. casciata might be due to multiple fragmented predictions representing single genes. P. regularis has substantially fewer predictions, which might suggest that in most cases, the scaffolds were too short even to predict partial genes.

Data availability

All data including sequencing reads and assemblies have been submitted to the ENA under the following project accessions: Australostichopus mollis = PRJEB10682; Patiriella regularis = PRJEB10600; Ophionereis fasciata = PRJEB10339. Supporting data is also archived in the GigaScience GigaDB database [16], and additional resources are available from http://ryanlab.whitney.ufl.edu/genomes/.

Abbreviations

ENA: 

European Nucleotide Archive

DNA: 

deoxyribonucleic acid

PE: 

paired end

RNA: 

ribonucleic acid

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Mansi Srivastava who was the catalyst for the collaboration between these authors. Josefina Peters-Didier assisted MS with collections and spawning of A. mollis. KL received support from the National Science Foundation Research Experience For Undergraduates (REU) Program (DBI-1156528).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience, University of Florida
(2)
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University
(3)
School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland
(4)
Department of Biology, University of Florida

References

  1. Kondo M, Akasaka K. Current status of echinoderm genome analysis-what do we know? Curr Genomics. 2012;13(2):134.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Cameron RA, Rowen L, Nesbitt R, Bloom S, Rast JP, Berney K, et al. Unusual gene order and organization of the sea urchin hox cluster. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2006;306(1):45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Davidson EH, Rast JP, Oliveri P, Ransick A, Calestani C, Yuh C-H, et al. A genomic regulatory network for development. Science. 2002;295(5560):1669–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kelly MW, Padilla‐Gamiño JL, Hofmann GE. Natural variation and the capacity to adapt to ocean acidification in the keystone sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Glob Chang Biol. 2013;19(8):2536–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron RA, Samanta M, Yuan A, He D, Davidson E. SpBase: the sea urchin genome database and web site. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37 suppl 1:D750–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Zwarycz AS, Nossa CW, Putnam NH, Ryan JF. Timing and scope of genomic expansion within Annelida: evidence from homeoboxes in the genome of the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Genome Biol Evol. 2015:evv243.Google Scholar
  7. Nossa CW, Havlak P, Yue J-X, Lv J, Vincent KY, Brockmann HJ, et al. Joint assembly and genetic mapping of the Atlantic horseshoe crab genome reveals ancient whole genome duplication. GigaScience. 2014;3(1):1–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Gnerre S, MacCallum I, Przybylski D, Ribeiro FJ, Burton JN, Walker BJ, et al. High-quality draft assemblies of mammalian genomes from massively parallel sequence data. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108(4):1513–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 2011;17(1):10–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Luo R, Liu B, Xie Y, Li Z, Huang W, Yuan J, et al. SOAPdenovo2: an empirically improved memory-efficient short-read de novo assembler. GigaScience. 2012;1(1):18.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Simpson JT, Wong K, Jackman SD, Schein JE, Jones SJ, Birol I. ABySS: a parallel assembler for short read sequence data. Genome Res. 2009;19(6):1117–23.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Kajitani R, Toshimoto K, Noguchi H, Toyoda A, Ogura Y, Okuno M, et al. Efficient de novo assembly of highly heterozygous genomes from whole-genome shotgun short reads. Genome Res. 2014;24(8):1384–95.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Parra G, Bradnam K, Korf I. CEGMA: a pipeline to accurately annotate core genes in eukaryotic genomes. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(9):1061–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Stanke M, Morgenstern B. AUGUSTUS: a web server for gene prediction in eukaryotes that allows user-defined constraints. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33 suppl 2:W465–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10(1):421.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Long KA, Nossa CW, Sewell MA, Putnam NH, Ryan JF. Supporting data for “Low coverage sequencing of three echinoderm genomes: the brittle star Ophionereis fasciata, the sea star Patiriella regularis, and the sea cucumber Australostichopus mollis”. GigaScience Database. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100194.

Copyright

© Long et al. 2016