ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Genome Note
Revised

Reference genome and reproduction-focused transcriptome for the threatened alpine tree frog (Litoria verreauxii alpina)

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
PUBLISHED 02 Sep 2025
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Galaxy gateway.

This article is included in the Genomics and Genetics gateway.

Abstract

The alpine tree frog (Litoria verreauxii alpina) is a threatened species found only above 1,200 meters within the Australian Alps. This species’ distribution has been severely limited due to the pathogentic amphibian chytrid fungus, and current populations persist by recruitment. Here, we provide the first publicly available genome for the genus. We used PacBio HiFi reads as well as Hi-C scaffolding data to construct a high-quality genome. We also generated a reproduction focused transcriptome from brain, liver, and gonad tissues. The genome was 2.77 Gb in length and consisted of 962 contigs with a contig N50 of 37.2 Mb and an L50 of 19. This study provides the first publicly available reference genome for the Litoria genus to assist in conservation and reproduction focused works in amphibian management.

Keywords

Anuran, Hylidae, genome assembly, conservation, Australia, threatened species

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Removed duplicate citation and changed Omni-C to Hi-C where possible throughout.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Yanbo Sun

Introduction

The alpine tree frog (Litoria verreauxii alpina; Figure 1) is endemic to the Australian Alps of New South Wales and Victoria, occurring at elevations above 1,200 meters (Brannelly et al., 2015). Since the introduction of the pathogenic amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) to Australia, the species’ distribution has declined by over 80% since the 1980s, leaving only a few remaining populations (Gillespie, Osborne, & McElhinney, 1995; Hunter, Osborne, & Smith, 1998; Osborne, Hunter, & Hollis, 1999; Hunter et al., 2009). Adult L. v. alpina are highly susceptible to Bd infection, with prevalence rates approaching 100% during the breeding season (Brannelly et al., 2015; Scheele et al., 2015). The species exhibits minimal protective immunity against the disease, leading to near-complete population turnover each breeding cycle (Bataille et al., 2015; Grogan et al., 2018; Brannelly et al., 2015; Scheele et al., 2015).

dd9eaa3e-433e-4d1a-b09a-cf6ca5961aef_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Photograph of a captive-bred alpine tree frog (Litoria verreauxii alpina). Photo by Tiffany Kosch and Corey Doughty.

Despite these challenges, the remaining L. v. alpina populations persist, largely due to a compensatory reproductive strategy. Infected individuals exhibit increased reproductive effort, as evidenced by larger gonadal structures and higher gamete production compared to uninfected counterparts (Scheele et al., 2015; Brannelly et al., 2016, 2021, 2025). This strategy may help offset high mortality rates, ensuring continued recruitment despite the overwhelming impact of Bd. However, the long-term effectiveness of this response remains uncertain, particularly as other environmental pressures further threaten population stability. Understanding the genetic mechanisms underlying this reproductive adaptation is crucial for assessing the species’ resilience and informing conservation strategies.

The Litoria genus, to which L. v. alpina belongs, is highly diverse, comprising over 150 recognized species across Australia (‘AmphibiaWeb’, 2025). Despite its ecological and evolutionary significance, no publicly available reference genomes for any species within the genus were identified in the Australian Reference Genome Atlas (ARGA) as of February 25, 2025 (Hall et al., 2023). To address this gap, we generated a high-quality reference genome for L. v. alpina, along with a reproduction-focused transcriptome derived from tissues critical to reproductive function which included the brain, liver, and gonads. These genomic resources provide a foundation for investigating genetic variation within the species, shedding light on how L. v. alpina maintains population persistence in the face of extreme disease pressure. Additionally, this work fills a critical gap in genomic knowledge within Litoria, offering new opportunities to study evolutionary relationships, reproductive adaptations, and broader ecological dynamics across the genus.

Methods

Sample collection and DNA/RNA extraction

Samples were collected from two adult males and one adult female L. v. alpina that were lab-raised from eggs at the University of Melbourne, Werribee campus, Victoria, Australia (Brannelly, Sharma, & Wallace, 2023). The individuals sampled were part of a larger experiment that involved humane euthanasia as the endpoint. Individuals were medically euthanized via immersion for ≥10 min in 3 mL of 100 mg/L tricaine methanesulfonate (MS-222) buffered with sodium bicarbonate. Individuals were removed from the MS-222 solution after becoming unresponsive and immediately decapitated (University of Melbourne’s Animal Ethics application: 26083). Tongue, muscle from the right thigh, and liver tissue were removed from one male (Lva_1) while brain, liver, and gonads (testes or ovaries) were extracted from the other male and female individual (Lva_2 and Lva_3 respectively). All samples were flash frozen using liquid nitrogen and stored at -80°C until extraction.

High molecular weight (HMW) DNA was extracted from the tongue and muscle tissue of Lva_1 using the Monarch® HMW DNA Extraction Kit for Cells & Blood (New England Biolabs: T3050S) following the manufacturer protocols. Concentrations and quality were then assessed via a Femto Pulse genomic DNA 165 kb kit (Agilent: FP-1002-0275), Qubit™ dsDNA BR assay kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific; Table 1), and NanoDrop (Thermo Fisher Scientific; Table 1), with the highest yielding sample used for library preparation.

Table 1. HMW DNA concentrations and purity measurements for muscle and tongue tissue from individual Lva_1.

SampleQubit (ng/μL)Nanodrop (ng/μL)260/280 260/230
Lva_1_Muscle 11.619.41.620.86
Lva_1_Tongue 376178.11.791.88

Total RNA was extracted from the brain, liver, and gonad tissues collected from Lva_2 and Lva_3 individuals using the RNAeasy Plus Mini Kit (Qiagen: 74134) with RNAse-free DNAse I set (Qiagen: EN0521) digestion. RNA quantity was determined using a Qubit 3 fluorometer with an Invitrogen™ Qubit RNA High Sensitivity Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and RNA integrity (RIN) score determined using a 5200 Fragment Analyzer (Agilent; Table 2).

Table 2. RNA concentrations and quality scores for brain, liver, and gonad samples from male (Lva_2) and female (Lva_3) Litoria verreauxii alpina.

SampleConcentration (ng/μL)Quality Score (RIN)Total (ng) DV200 (%)
Lva_2_Brain 25.89.680190
Lva_2_Liver 16.59.951288
Lva_2_Testes 56.310.0174693
Lva_3_Brain 14.09.843386
Lva_3_Liver 4.2-12966
Lva_3_Ovary 23.89.973891

Library construction and sequencing

The HMW DNA from Lva_1 tongue tissue was sent for Pacific Biosciences High Fidelity (PacBio HiFi) library preparation with a SMRTbell® prep kit 3.0 (Pacific Biosciences: 102-141-700) and Revio™ polymerase kit (Pacific Biosciences: 102-739-100) and sequencing on one single molecule real-time (SMRT) cell on a PacBio Revio at Australian Genome Research Facility (AGRF), Brisbane, Australia.

Two LinkPrep libraries were prepared from liver tissue from Lva_1 using the Dovetail® LinkPrep™ Kit (Cantata Bio) at the Advanced Genomics Services of the Australian Genome Research Facility. Briefly, the chromatin was fixed with disuccinmidyl glutarate (DSG) and formaldehyde in the nucleus. The cross-linked chromatin was then fragmented and tagged with Tn5 transposase in situ. Next, the cells were lysed to extract the chromatin fragments, which were subsequently bound to chromatin capture beads. Proximity ligation was then performed, whereby chromatin fragments that were in proximity to one another were ligated together. After proximity ligation, the crosslinks were reversed, the associated proteins were degraded, and the DNA was purified and converted into a sequencing library. Each library was sequenced on an Illumina Novaseq X plus platform to generate 2 million 2 × 150 bp read pairs to assess the quality of mapping, valid cis - trans reads and complexity of the library. For chromosome level assembly, each library was sequenced approximately 100 million 2 × 150 bp read pairs per Gb of the genome size at the Australian Genome Research Facility, Melbourne, Australia.

Total RNA from the brain, liver, and gonads of individuals Lva_2 and Lva_3 was prepared using Illumina Total RNA with RiboZero Plus library preparation and sequenced as 150 bp paired-end reads on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 at the Australian Genome Research Facility, Melbourne, Australia.

Genome assembly

Genome assembly was conducted on the Galaxy Australia platform using workflows developed by Bioplatforms Australia Threatened Species Initiative, Galaxy Australia, and the Australian BioCommons (https://australianbiocommons.github.io/how-to-guides/). After the upload of the raw HiFi reads in.ccs.bam format provided by AGRF, we used the BAM to FASTQ + QC v1.0 workflow (Price, 2022a). This utilizes SamtoFastq v2.18.2.2 (Broad Institute, 2009), Samtools flagstat v2.0.3 (Danecek et al., 2021), and FastQC v0.72 (Andrews, 2010). Following file conversion, we ran the PacBio HiFi genome assembly using hifiasm v2.1 workflow (Price & Farquharson, 2022). This process produced a draft genome assembly in FASTA format, accompanied by assembly metrics and a detailed report. HiFi reads underwent adapter sequence removal using HiFiAdapterFilt v2.0.0 (Sim et al., 2022), followed by de novo assembly using hifiasm v0.16.1 (Cheng et al., 2021). To evaluate assembly structure and completeness, the assembly graph was visualized using Bandage Image v0.8.1 (Wick et al., 2015). Bandage Info v0.8.1 was used to extract key assembly statistics, such as contig N50 and total assembly length, providing insights into the overall quality of the assembly.

To enhance the assembly’s accuracy, the purge duplicates from hifiasm assembly v1.0 workflow (Price, 2022b) was applied to remove haplotype repeats. This step uses minimap2 v2.28 (Li, 2018) and purge_dups v1.2.6 (Guan et al., 2020) to align and purge duplicates based on read depth. We then scaffolded the Hi-C reads with the genome using the TSI scaffolding with HiC (based on VGP-HiC-scaffolding) v1.0 workflow (Syme & Silver, 2024). The scaffolding workflow utilizes several tools including BWA-MEM2 v2.2.1 (Li & Durbin, 2010; Li, 2013), YAHS v1.21.2 (Zhou, McCarthy, & Durbin, 2023), gfastats v1.3.10 (Formenti et al., 2022), bedtools BAM to BED v2.31.1 (Quinlan & Hall, 2010), and PretextMap v0.1.9 (Harry, n.d.). The finished genome was assessed using the genome assessment post assembly workflow (Farquharson et al., 2024), which produces Fasta statistics v2.0, Quast v5.0.2 (Mikheenko et al., 2018), BUSCO v5.4.6 (Simão et al., 2015), and Merqury v1.3 (Rhie et al., 2020) outputs.

Transcriptome assembly

Transcriptome assembly was also conducted on the Galaxy Australia platform using workflows developed by Bioplatforms Australia Threatened Species Initiative. To minimize interference from repetitive genomic elements, the reference genome was first subjected to repeat masking using the Repeat Masking v3.0 workflow (Silver & Syme, 2024a). The workflow processed the reference genome FASTA file, generating both hard-masked and soft-masked genome files along with a statistics report detailing the extent of masking. Quality control and adapter trimming of raw RNA sequencing reads were performed using the QC and Trimming of RNAseq Reads v1.0 workflow (Silver & Syme, 2024b) for each tissue separately. This step involved filtering low-quality bases and removing sequencing adapters. Trimmomatic Galaxy v0.36.6 was used to trim-reads specifying NEXTERA (pair-ended) adapters, SLIDING-WINDOW:4:5, LEADING:5, TRAILING:5 and MINLEN:25 (Bolger, Lohse, & Usadel, 2014). The soft repeat-masked genome was indexed and reads were aligned using HiSAT2 v2.2.1 (Kim et al., 2019). Quality was assessed using FASTQC v0.74 (Andrews, 2010), and the processed reads were retained as paired FASTQ files for subsequent analysis.

Processed RNA-Seq reads were aligned by tissue and individual of origin to the soft-masked reference genome using the Align Reads to Find Transcripts v1.0 workflow (Silver & Syme, 2024c). This alignment generated BAM and GTF files, providing transcript structures and alignment metrics to aid in genome annotation. Transcriptome assembly was conducted using the Combine Transcripts v1.0 workflow (Silver & Syme, 2024d), which integrated tissue-specific transcript data into a comprehensive global transcriptome. Coding sequences were predicted based on sequence homology with Xenopus laevis coding DNA (cDNA) downloaded from NCBI. The workflow output included a GTF file representing the global transcriptome and FASTA sequences of coding transcripts.

To identify the longest isoforms, the Extract Longest Transcripts v1.0 workflow (Silver & Syme, 2024e) was applied. TransDecoder was used to predict coding sequences, filtering transcripts to retain only the longest isoform per gene. The resulting outputs included peptide FASTA files, coding sequence FASTA files, and GFF3 annotation files for further analyses. The final step involved converting the transcriptome annotation outputs into formats compatible with genome annotation tools. The Convert Outputs v1.0 workflow (Silver & Syme, 2024f) was used to process TransDecoder peptide FASTA files and global nucleotide FASTA files into .cdna, .dat, and .pro formats required for downstream annotation applications.

Genome annotation

Genome annotation was performed using the FgenesH++ tool on the Galaxy Australia platform using the assembled reference genome, the hard-masked genome and the.cdna, .pro, and.dat files generated by the Convert Outputs v1.0 (Silver & Syme, 2024f) workflows as input files. The Fgenesh annotation v3.0 workflow (Silver, 2024) was executed, which involves genome splitting, annotation, merging of annotation files, and extraction of mRNA, CDS, and protein sequences. The settings used the Xenopus (generic frog) gene-finding matrix and a non-mammalian database. The outputs included GFF3 files of annotated genes and FASTA files for mRNA, CDS, and protein sequences. BUSCO v5.4.6 in ‘protein’ modes was used to assess the annotation with the tetrapoda_odb10 lineage.

Results

Genome size and assembly

Assembly of the male Litoria verreauxii alpina resulted in a genome of 2.77 Gb, which was comprised of 962 contigs with a contig N50 of 37.17 Mb. The genome was sequenced using PacBio HiFi reads which generated 87.92 Gb from 7,764,356 reads, resulting in a coverage of 31.74×. Primary assembly contigs were scaffolded using proximity-based enrichment Hi-C data ( Figure 2), which produced 248.99 Gb from 829,962,675 reads. Genome scaffolding with this data resulted in 774 scaffolds with 188 gaps and a scaffold N50 of 267.09 Mb ( Table 3). The majority (91.3%) of the assembly mapped to the first 13 scaffolds, reflecting the 13 chromosome karyotype described for the species (Schmid et al., 2018) and within other Litoria species (Ferro et al., 2018; Mollard, Mahony, & West, 2024; Kosch et al., 2025).

dd9eaa3e-433e-4d1a-b09a-cf6ca5961aef_figure2.gif

Figure 2. Hi-C contact map of the L.v. alpina reference genome. Left: represents contacts for the first 12 scaffolds of the genome. Right: represents contacts for all 774 scaffolds of the genome. Scaffolds are shown in order of size from top-left going right at a diagonal.

Table 3. Genome assembly statistics for the Litoria verreauxii alpina genome.

Genome assembly
Assembly length2,772,442,494
Number of contigs962
Contig N5037,168,586
Contig L5019
Contig N902,484,530
Contig L90130
Longest contig169,435,372
Number of scaffolds774
Scaffold N50267,093,197
Scaffold L504
Scaffold N9036,543,458
Scaffold L9012
Longest scaffold522,534,866
GC content %43.04
Read coverage31.74

The Merqury estimated Quality Value (QV) of the final assembly was 63.7 with an error rate of 4.2e−7. Completeness with Merqury was lower than expected at 78.6%, which is most likely due to the fact that the purge duplicates workflow removed a high number of repetitive sequences and haplotigs ( Figure 3). Before purging, the genome was 2777517237 bp and had a 100% completeness score. After purging, the genome was reduced to 2772442494 bp with most of the purged sequences labeled as high coverage, haplotig, or repeat sequences. BUSCO v5.4.6 indicated a completeness of 90.1% (single = 86.7%, duplicate = 3.4%), using the tetrapoda_odb10 reference set (n = 5310) ( Table 4).

dd9eaa3e-433e-4d1a-b09a-cf6ca5961aef_figure3.gif

Figure 3. Merqury output showing the copy number of k-mers.

‘k-mer multiplicity’ records the number of times a certain k-mer appears in the reads, and ‘Count’ records the number of k-mers that have appeared that number of times. Grey represents the k-mers found only in the reads, while the colors correspond to the number of k-mers that have appeared at that given number of times.

Table 4. Genome assembly metrics of the completed Litoria verreauxii alpina genome.

Genome assembly metrics
Quality value (QV)*63.7 (4.2e−7)
Completeness78.6%
BUSCO**C:90.1% [S:86.7%, D:3.4%], F:2.9%, M:7.0%, n:5310

* Consensus quality value (error rate).

** BUSCO scores based on the tetrapoda_odb10 BUSCO reference set using version 5.4.6. C = complete, S = single copy, D = duplicated, F = fragmented, M = missing, n = number of orthologues in comparison.

Transcriptome assembly and genome annotation

After quality trimming, 99.48% of reads were retained. Individual tissues had a high number of duplicate reads ranging from 57.2% – 85.0%. The individual tissue transcriptomes had varying mapping rates to the soft repeat-masked genome (78.77% female brain; 77.89% male brain; 80.59% female liver; 83.50% male liver; 80.92% ovary; 81.59% testes). A total of 98760 transcripts were used as evidence for the genome annotation. Repetitive elements comprised 61.43% of the total genomic sequence, with 41.88% of these consisting of unclassified repeats. A total of 40092 genes were predicted from the annotation ( Table 5). There was an average of 6.2 exons (SE=34.6) per putative gene with an average exon length of 229 bp (SE=556) and an average intron length of 3353 bp (SE=12458). The reproduction focused annotation had 65.4% BUSCOs [Single copy: 62.8%; Duplicated: 2.6%]; 14.2% fragmented BUSCOs and 20.4% missing BUSCOs.

Table 5. Reproduction focused genome transcriptome statistics, repeat content, and alignment of the Litoria verreauxii alpina genome.

Genome annotation statistics
% of genomeAverage size (bp)Median size (bp) n
Exon2229126249568
Gene2819299769940092
Intron2533531033209476
Genome repeat content
Repeat elementNumber of elements % of genome
DNA transposons8672219.69
LINEs4446395.79
SINEs316300.23
LTRs3860243.84
Simple817510.14
Unclassified615371341.88
Total interspersed repeats61.43
Small RNA505660.46
Satellites59030.13
Simple repeats817510.14

Ethical considerations

Frogs were humanely euthanized following the completion of previous experimental procedures under the University of Melbourne (Victoria, Australia) Animal Ethics permit #26083.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 May 2025
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Wendt AS and Brannelly L. Reference genome and reproduction-focused transcriptome for the threatened alpine tree frog (Litoria verreauxii alpina) [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2025, 14:514 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.163701.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 23 May 2025
Views
1
Cite
Reviewer Report 16 Jun 2025
Martin Knytl, Charles University, Viničná, Czech Republic 
Approved
VIEWS 1
The proposed manuscript “Reference genome and reproduction-focused transcriptome for the threatened alpine tree frog (Litoria verreauxii alpina)” presents a valuable de-novo genome assembly at the scaffold level for this threatened species. One of the key fundings is the mapping of ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Knytl M. Reviewer Report For: Reference genome and reproduction-focused transcriptome for the threatened alpine tree frog (Litoria verreauxii alpina) [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2025, 14:514 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180093.r387736)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
5
Cite
Reviewer Report 06 Jun 2025
Yanbo Sun, Yunnan University, Kunming, China 
Approved
VIEWS 5
Summary of the Article
The study presents the first reference genome (2.77 Gb) and a reproduction-focused transcriptome for the threatened alpine tree frog (Litoria verreauxii alpina), a species endemic to the Australian Alps. The genome was assembled using ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Sun Y. Reviewer Report For: Reference genome and reproduction-focused transcriptome for the threatened alpine tree frog (Litoria verreauxii alpina) [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2025, 14:514 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180093.r387730)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 02 Sep 2025
    Alexander Wendt, Department of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Melbourne Faculty of Science, Werribee, 3030, Australia
    02 Sep 2025
    Author Response
    We found that the default parameters within the Galaxy workflows for assembly (e.g., hifiasm, minimap2, purge_dups) were sufficient for our assembly, and adjusting these parameters made no noticeable difference to ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 02 Sep 2025
    Alexander Wendt, Department of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Melbourne Faculty of Science, Werribee, 3030, Australia
    02 Sep 2025
    Author Response
    We found that the default parameters within the Galaxy workflows for assembly (e.g., hifiasm, minimap2, purge_dups) were sufficient for our assembly, and adjusting these parameters made no noticeable difference to ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 May 2025
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.