Skip to main content

The brain transcriptome of the wolf spider, Schizocosa ocreata

Abstract

Objectives

Arachnids have fascinating and unique biology, particularly for questions on sex differences and behavior, creating the potential for development of powerful emerging models in this group. Recent advances in genomic techniques have paved the way for a significant increase in the breadth of genomic studies in non-model organisms. One growing area of research is comparative transcriptomics. When phylogenetic relationships to model organisms are known, comparative genomic studies provide context for analysis of homologous genes and pathways. The goal of this study was to lay the groundwork for comparative transcriptomics of sex differences in the brain of wolf spiders, a non-model organism of the pyhlum Euarthropoda, by generating transcriptomes and analyzing gene expression.

Data description

To examine sex-differential gene expression, short read transcript sequencing and de novo transcriptome assembly were performed. Messenger RNA was isolated from brain tissue of male and female subadult and mature wolf spiders (Schizocosa ocreata). The raw data consist of sequences for the two different life stages in each sex. Computational analyses on these data include de novo transcriptome assembly and differential expression analyses. Sample-specific and combined transcriptomes, gene annotations, and differential expression results are described in this data note and are available from publicly-available databases.

Objectives

Arachnids, including spiders, have diverse and unique reproductive behavior, including sexual cannibalism and female aggression, copulatory wounding, and elaborate courtship with sexual dimorphism in morphology and coloration [1,2,3,4,5]. The development of genomic resources in arachnids will allow for key comparisons not only in genome biology, but also in evolution and in the biology of sex. Comparative studies between arachnids and model organisms in other arthropod classes can provide a broader set of inferences that goes beyond what has been learned from model organisms. For example, copulatory wounding, male leg ornamentation, and elaborate courtship are well-studied in Drosophila, and arachnid genomic comparative studies can reveal parallel or divergent mechanisms [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15].

Several arachnid genomes and transcriptomes, including those of spiders, mites and scorpions, have recently become available [16,17,18]. Given that spiders have unique sex-specific behaviors and that progress is ongoing in developing arachnid genomics, our goal was to generate transcriptomes and gene expression data using mRNA from brains of males and females of the wolf spider, Schizocosa ocreata. Studies of wolf spider sexual dimorphism in morphology and behavior have revealed intriguing parallels to textbook examples of sex dimorphism in well-studied model organisms [19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. The data presented here are valuable in laying necessary groundwork for broad comparative functional genomics of sex differences in brain and behavior across arthropods.

Data description

mRNA was isolated from brain samples of immature (Imm; subadult) and mature (Mat; adult) male and female Schizocosa ocreata, collected in Lancaster County, Nebraska (see detailed methods: NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus [GEO] Series accession number GSE168766). Illumina paired-end sequencing was performed with libraries generated from mRNA derived from individual brain samples, with three replicates for each sex/stage (Data set 1; NCBI SRA: SRP302932). Sequence reads were processed to remove index and low-quality sequences; quality assessments are provided (Data file 1; Table 1; GEO GSE168766).

Table 1 Overview of data files/data sets

Transcriptome assembly was performed for each sample using Trinity followed by CAP3 [26, 27]. A consensus transcriptome was assembled combining all individual assemblies using CAP3. Transcriptome quality was evaluated on individual sample and consensus transcriptome assemblies based on the number of conserved protein coding genes identified from the Core Eukaryotic Genes Mapping Approach (CEGMA) and Benchmarking sets of Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO) Arthropod databases (Data file 2; GEO GSE168766) [28,29,30]. Both CEGMA and BUSCO alignments used the Basic Local Alignment Search (BLAST) utility with default threshold E-value of 1e−20 [31]. In the consensus assembly, 99% of CEGMA and 95% of BUSCO genes were identified, demonstrating a high assembly quality. To facilitate this workflow, the Transcriptome-Flow (TFLOW) pipeline was developed (Python 2.7; Zenodo; Data file 6). Each individual assembly was filtered to remove contaminant sequences and uploaded to the NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly (TSA) database (Data sets 2–11; Table 1).

Putative protein coding sequences from the consensus assembly were extracted using TransDecoder v5.3.0 [32]. Coding sequences were annotated using Trinonate [33], aligning coding sequence (CDS) and predicted protein sequences against several databases, including Uniprot (October 2018), NCBI nr, and the Flybase Drosophila melanogaster v6.23 draft genome (Data file 3; GEO GSE168766). These alignments were used for identification of Protein Family (Pfam) domains, Gene Ontology (GO), and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) identifiers [34,35,36,37,38,39].

Annotated coding sequences were clustered into genes based on sequence similarity determined by an all-vs-all BLASTn analysis, with software archived on Zenodo (Data file 7). Sequences identified as contaminants were removed and consensus CDS sequences were uploaded to the TSA database (Data set 12: TSA GIZQ00000000). For analysis of differential expression, reads were aligned to consensus CDS sequences and assigned to gene clusters, with expression estimated as read counts per gene (Data file 4; GEO GSE168766). Read alignment was performed using Burrows–Wheeler Aligner (BWA-MEM, version 0.6.1-r104) [40, 41]. A linear model was fit with the glmLRT function in edgeR (version 3.1.2) using default (trimmed mean of M values, TMM) normalization [42,43,44]. Likelihood ratio tests were constructed with comparisons between: (1) immature vs mature adult data within sex; (2) all immature vs all adult data from both sexes; (3) male vs. female data at each stage; and (4) all male vs all female data from both stages. The calculated log fold-change (logFC), log counts-per-million (logCPM), Likelihood-ratio (LR), p-value, and false discovery rate (FDR) adjusted p-value are reported (Data file 5; GEO GSE168766). The R-script has been archived on Zenodo (Data file 8).

Limitations

Following read processing and quality assessment, two libraries (immature female 1 and adult male 1) were excluded from further analysis due to low sequence coverage. This limits the power to detect differential expression in the corresponding comparisons. The quality of the transcriptomes could be improved by coupling these data with long-read sequencing data in future work. Since the completion of this study, the CEGMA annotation database has been discontinued. The TFLOW software package was developed in the Python2.7 programming language which is no longer actively supported. Archival versions of Python2.7 may be utilized to execute TFLOW, or conversion of this software to a currently-supported version of Python can be performed using a python version-update package.

Availability of data and materials

The data described in this Data note can be freely and openly accessed on the NCBI SRA database under accession number SRP302932 (https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRP302932); the NCBI TSA database under BioProject accession number PRJNA694130 (https://identifiers.org/bioproject:PRJNA694130; full accession list in Table 1); and the NCBI GEO database under accession number GSE168766 (https://identifiers.org/geo:GSE168766) [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. The computational pipeline utilized for transcriptome assembly and quality assessment is available through Zenodo under DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3817475 [58]. The scripts utilized for clustering and differential expression analysis are available through Zenodo under DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4330738 [59]. Please see Table 1 and references [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59] for details and links to the data.

Abbreviations

CEGMA:

Core Eukaryotic Genes Mapping Approach

BUSCO:

Benchmarking sets of Universal Single-Copy Orthologs

BLAST:

Basic Local Alignment Search Tool

BWA:

Burrows–Wheeler Aligner

CDS:

Coding sequence

FDR:

False discovery rate

GO:

Gene Ontology

GEO:

Gene Expression Omnibus

Imm:

Immature

KEGG:

Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes

logCPM:

Log counts-per-million

logFC:

Log fold-change

LR:

Likelihood-ratio

Mat:

Mature

mRNA:

Messenger RNA

NCBI:

National Center for Biotechnology Information

Pfam:

Protein family

TMM:

Trimmed mean of M-value

RNA-seq:

RNA sequencing

TSA:

Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly

SRA:

Sequence Read Archive

References

  1. 1.

    Schneider J, Fromhage L. Monogynous mating strategies in spiders. In: Kappeler P, editor. Animal behaviour: evolution and mechanisms. Berlin: Springer; 2010. p. 441–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02624-9_15.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Herberstein ME, Wignall AE, Hebets EA, Schneider JM. Dangerous mating systems: signal complexity, signal content and neural capacity in spiders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014;46(Pt 4):509–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.07.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Shamble PS, Wilgers DJ, Swoboda KA, Hebets EA. Courtship effort is a better predictor of mating success than ornamentation for male wolf spiders. Behav Ecol. 2009;20:1242–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Mouginot P, Uhl G, Fromhage L. Evolution of external female genital mutilation: why do males harm their mates? R Soc Open Sci. 2017;4: 171195. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171195.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Řezáč M. The spider Harpactea sadistica: co-evolution of traumatic insemination and complex female genital morphology in spiders. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2009;276:2697–701. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kamimura Y. Correlated evolutionary changes in Drosophila female genitalia reduce the possible infection risk caused by male copulatory wounding. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2012;66:1107–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1361-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kamimura Y. Twin intromittent organs of Drosophila for traumatic insemination. Biol Lett. 2007;3:401–4. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0192.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ng CS, Kopp A. Sex combs are important for male mating success in Drosophila melanogaster. Behav Genet. 2008;38:195–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-008-9190-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Spieth HT. Mating behaviour within the genus Drosophila (Diptera). Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 1952;99:395–474.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cobb M, Burnet B, Connolly K. The structure of courtship in the Drosophila melanogaster species sub-group. Behaviour. 1986;97:182–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Reinhardt K, Anthes N, Lange R. Copulatory wounding and traumatic insemination. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a017582.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Masly JP, Kamimura Y. Asymmetric mismatch in strain-specific genital morphology causes increased harm to Drosophila females. Evolution. 2014;68:2401–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Tanaka K, Barmina O, Massey JH, Kopp A. Convergent evolution of sex-specific leg ornaments in Drosophilidae—from cells to structures. BioRxiv. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1101/786764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kopp A. Drosophila sex combs as a model of evolutionary innovations. Evol Dev. 2011;13:504–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2011.00507.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Greenspan RJ, Ferveur JF. Courtship in Drosophila. Annu Rev Genet. 2000;34:205–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.34.1.205.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Garb JE, Sharma PP, Ayoub NA. Recent progress and prospects for advancing arachnid genomics. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2018;25:51–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2017.11.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Pomerantz AF, Hoy MA, Kawahara AY. Molecular characterization and evolutionary insights into potential sex-determination genes in the western orchard predatory mite Metaseiulus occidentalis (Chelicerata: Arachnida: Acari: Phytoseiidae). J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2015;33:1239–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/07391102.2014.941402.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Meibers HE, Finch G, Gregg RT, Glenn S, Assani KD, Jennings EC, et al. Sex- and developmental-specific transcriptomic analyses of the Antarctic mite, Alaskozetes antarcticus, reveal transcriptional shifts underlying oribatid mite reproduction. Polar Biol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-018-2427-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Moskalik B, Uetz GW. Experience with chemotactile cues indicating female feeding history impacts male courtship investment in the wolf spider Schizocosa ocreata. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011;65:2175–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1225-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    McClintock WJ, Uetz GW. Female choice and pre-existing bias: visual cues during courtship in two Schizocosawolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim Behav. 1996;52:167–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    McLean CJ, Garwood RJ, Brassey CA. Sexual dimorphism in the Arachnid orders. PeerJ. 2018;6:e5751. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5751.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Walker SE, Rypstra AL. Sexual dimorphism in trophic morphology and feeding behavior of wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) as a result of differences in reproductive roles. Can J Zool. 2002;80:679–88. https://doi.org/10.1139/z02-037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hebets EA, Wesson J, Shamble PS. Diet influences mate choice selectivity in adult female wolf spiders. Anim Behav. 2008;76:355–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.12.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Hebets EA, Uetz GW. Leg ornamentation and the efficacy of courtship display in four species of wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2000;47:280–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Wilgers DJ, Hebets EA. Age-related female mating decisions are condition dependent in wolf spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2012;66:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1248-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Grabherr MG, Haas BJ, Yassour M, Levin JZ, Thompson DA, Amit I, et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29:644–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1883.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Huang X, Madan A. CAP3: a DNA sequence assembly program. Genome Res. 1999;9:868–77. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.9.9.868.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Parra G, Bradnam K, Korf I. CEGMA: a pipeline to accurately annotate core genes in eukaryotic genomes. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:1061–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm071.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Parra G, Bradnam K, Ning Z, Keane T, Korf I. Assessing the gene space in draft genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:289–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkn916.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Seppey M, Manni M, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;1962:227–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9173-0_14.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(410):403. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1990.9999.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Haas BJ, Papanicolaou A, Yassour M, Grabherr M, Blood PD, Bowden J, et al. De novo transcript sequence reconstruction from RNA-seq using the Trinity platform for reference generation and analysis. Nat Protoc. 2013;8:1494–512. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2013.084.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Bryant DM, Johnson K, DiTommaso T, Tickle T, Couger MB, Payzin-Dogru D, et al. A tissue-mapped axolotl de novo transcriptome enables identification of limb regeneration factors. Cell Rep. 2017;18:762–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.12.063.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    El-Gebali S, Mistry J, Bateman A, Eddy SR, Luciani A, Potter SC, et al. The Pfam protein families database in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D427–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky995.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Michael Cherry J, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet. 2000;25:25–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/75556.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    The Gene Ontology Consortium. The gene ontology resource: 20 years and still going strong. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D330–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1055.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG: kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:27–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.27.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kanehisa M. Toward understanding the origin and evolution of cellular organisms. Protein Sci. 2019;28:1947–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.3715.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kanehisa M, Furumichi M, Sato Y, Ishiguro-Watanabe M, Tanabe M. KEGG: integrating viruses and cellular organisms. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa970.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Li H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv preprint. arxiv:1303.3997. 2013.

  41. 41.

    Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:589–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp698.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:139–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    McCarthy DJ, Chen Y, Smyth GK. Differential expression analysis of multifactor RNA-Seq experiments with respect to biological variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks042.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Chen Y, Lun ATL, Smyth GK. Differential expression analysis of complex RNA-seq experiments using edgeR. Stat Anal Next Gener Seq Data. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07212-8_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Rosenthal M, Hebets E, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. NCBI Sequence Read Archive. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRP302932.

  46. 46.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Rosenthal M, Hebets E, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. The brain transcriptome of the wolf spider, Schizocosa ocreata. NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus. 2021. https://identifiers.org/geo:GSE168766.

  47. 47.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. TSA: Schizocosa ocreata isolate immature male, transcriptome shotgun assembly. NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly Sequence Database. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:GIZN00000000.

  48. 48.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. TSA: Schizocosa ocreata isolate immature male, transcriptome shotgun assembly. NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly Sequence Database. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:GIZS00000000.

  49. 49.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. TSA: Schizocosa ocreata isolate immature male, transcriptome shotgun assembly. NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly Sequence Database. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:GIZT00000000.

  50. 50.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. TSA: Schizocosa ocreata isolate immature female, transcriptome shotgun assembly. NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly Sequence Database. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:GIZM00000000.

  51. 51.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. TSA: Schizocosa ocreata isolate immature female, transcriptome shotgun assembly. NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly Sequence Database. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:GIZR00000000.

  52. 52.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. TSA: Schizocosa ocreata isolate mature male, transcriptome shotgun assembly. NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly Sequence Database. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:GIZP00000000.

  53. 53.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. TSA: Schizocosa ocreata isolate mature male, transcriptome shotgun assembly. NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly Sequence Database. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:GIZW00000000.

  54. 54.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. TSA: Schizocosa ocreata isolate mature female, transcriptome shotgun assembly. NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly Sequence Database. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:GIZO00000000.

  55. 55.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. TSA: Schizocosa ocreata isolate mature female, transcriptome shotgun assembly. NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly Sequence Database. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:GIZU00000000.

  56. 56.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. TSA: Schizocosa ocreata isolate mature female, transcriptome shotgun assembly. NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly Sequence Database. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:GIZV00000000.

  57. 57.

    Stribling D, Chang PL, Dalton JE, Conow CA, Graze RM, Arbeitman MN. TSA: Schizocosa ocreata, transcriptome shotgun assembly. NCBI Transcriptome Shotgun Assembly Sequence Database. 2021. https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:GIZQ00000000.

  58. 58.

    D Stribling. Transcriptome-FLOW (TFLOW): transcriptome assembly pipeline. Zenodo. 2015. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3817474

  59. 59.

    Stribling D, Chang PL. Schizocosa ocreata gene clustering and differential expression analysis scripts (version v1.1). Zenodo. 2020. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4330738.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Gary Tyson in Computer Science at Florida State University for supporting DS.

Funding

This study was supported by research start-up funds from the Florida State College of Medicine (awarded to MNA) and National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant 1751296 (awarded to RMG).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The project was conceived by MNA. JD made the Illumina sequencing libraries with brain tissue collected by MR utilizing a protocol designed by EH. DS and PLC developed the software that was utilized and performed the computational analyses. CAC created the clustering analysis. DS, PLC, RMG, and MNA performed data interpretation and manuscript writing. All authors provided intellectual feedback, and reviewed, manuscript submission. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle N. Arbeitman.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stribling, D., Chang, P.L., Dalton, J.E. et al. The brain transcriptome of the wolf spider, Schizocosa ocreata. BMC Res Notes 14, 236 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05648-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Schizocosa ocreata
  • Wolf spiders
  • Gene expression
  • Transcriptomes
  • Sexual dimorphism
  • Sex-differential gene expression
  • Sex biased expression
  • Brain and central nervous system
  • De novo transcriptome assembly