Toward standardization in arthropod and biodiversity genome projects

Clicks: 30
ID: 322364
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #49 of 320 articles by views in current genetics

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 320 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
In recent years, many high-quality reference genome sequences for arthropod species have been generated. Although most genome papers describe their protocols and metrics, no consensus exists on the data that should be included in genome reports. Here, we review current standards across seven key stages of an arthropod genome project (budgeting, sourcing and vouchering, sample preparation and sequencing, genome assembly, analysis reproducibility, databasing, and genome annotation) and identify persistent gaps in standards as well as their implementation. To assess current standards reporting in the community, we surveyed 100 arthropod genome papers published in 2024. The use of long reads to assemble highly contiguous arthropod genomes is now standard practice when adequate input DNA is available, and basic assembly contiguity and conserved gene content statistics are consistently reported. However, there is less standardization in pre- and post-assembly procedures and metrics. When comparing Darwin Tree of Life (DToL) genome notes to other journals, publications from the latter group were less likely to describe compliance with ethical collection practices, sample vouchering, post-assembly curation steps, and assembly quality metrics beyond basic contiguity and completeness values. Genome annotation practices are highly variable: some genome note formats do not explicitly require annotation, and while the reporting rate of protein-coding gene annotations is higher in non-DToL publications, the submission rate of annotations to centralized sequence databases is much lower. Our findings highlight critical opportunities to harmonize reporting standards and promote their dissemination, ensuring that future arthropod genomes are both comparable and maximally reusable for large-scale comparative and applied research.
Reference Key
openalex_W7170187450 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Eric S. Tvedte, Gregor Bucher, David Luecke, David Molik, Terrence Sylvester, Mark Blaxter, Christine G. Elsik, Kerstin Howe, Duane D. McKenna, Terence D. Murphy, Lukas Schrader, Cibele G. Sotero-Caio, Robert M. Waterhouse, Anna K. Childers, Marc S. Halfon, Monica F. Poelchau
Journal current genetics
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/genetics/iyag172
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyag172
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.