Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41543122›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of heredity2026

The genome assemblies of the Tui chub, Siphateles bicolor, and Arroyo chub, Gila orcuttii.

Henry K Baker, Cheyenne Y Payne, Merly Escalona, Jeff Rodzen, Steve Parmenter, Russell M Barabe, Claire Ingel, Mohan P A Marimuthu, Oanh Nguyen, Noravit Chumchim and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of heredity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Henry K BakerDepartment of Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0166-5085
Cheyenne Y PayneInstitute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4651-3824
Merly EscalonaDepartment of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California Santa Cruz, California, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0213-4777
Jeff RodzenGenetics Research Laboratory, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4150-8591
Steve ParmenterCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bishop, CA, United States (Retired).
Russell M BarabeCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife, Murrieta, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7668-1082
Claire IngelCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA, United States.
Mohan P A MarimuthuDNA Technologies and Expression Analysis Core Laboratory, Genome Center, University of California-  Davis, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6121-3286
Oanh NguyenDNA Technologies and Expression Analysis Core Laboratory, Genome Center, University of California-  Davis, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1492-2084
Noravit ChumchimDNA Technologies and Expression Analysis Core Laboratory, Genome Center, University of California-  Davis, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1139-9427
Eric BerautDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4443-6282
Samuel SaccoDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1227-8934
William SeligmannDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5762-3095
Colin W FairbairnDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0007-8129-0095
Robert D CooperDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0194-329X
Courtney MillerDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4347-6629
Erin ToffelmierDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6028-8497
J Carlos GarzaInstitute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7325-6803
H Bradley ShafferDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5795-9242
Diana J RennisonDepartment of Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5944-0743
Jonathan B ShurinDepartment of Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7870-1972

Funding

California Conservation Genomics ProjectUniversity of California by the State of CaliforniaUniversity of California's Mildred E. Mathias GrantValentine Eastern Sierra Reserves Graduate Student Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present genome assemblies for two cyprinoid fishes, the tui chub (Siphateles bicolor) and the arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii). These fishes are ecologically important representatives of native fish assemblages in the western United States and are both species of conservation concern. The two species hybridize where introductions bring them into contact, with potentially important ecological and evolutionary implications that have not yet been thoroughly examined from a genomic perspective. We present de novo assemblies for both species, representing the first scaffold-level genomes within their respective genera, which were developed as part of the California Conservation Genomics Project using Pacific Biosciences HiFi and Omni-C data. Our tui chub assembly consists of 258 scaffolds spanning 1,148,084,093 base pairs, has a scaffold N50 of 45.9 mb, a contig N50 of 23.7 mb, and a BUSCO completeness score of 98.1%. Our arroyo chub assembly consists of 179 scaffolds spanning 1,263,410,250 base pairs, has a scaffold N50 of 50.5 mb, a contig N50 of 13.1 mb, and a BUSCO completeness score of 97.8%. A comparative analysis of the two species revealed relatively conserved genomes, with the exception of two inversions at chromosome 20. We annotated a total of 34,090 genes with a BUSCO completeness score of 98.1% for the tui chub, and 28,193 genes with a score of 97.4% for the arroyo chub. These assemblies will be valuable resources for characterizing the species' phylogeographic histories and delineating the role of hybridization in their evolution.

Indexed as

CypriniformesGenomeAnimalsGenomicsSequence Analysis, DNACalifornia conservation genomics projectCCGPconservation geneticsCypriniformesfreshwater fishLeuciscidae

Identifiers

PMID41543122
PMCPMC13326408

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.