Abstract
Background
Pomacea is the most diverse genus of the freshwater snail family Ampullariidae, which have been proposed as model organisms in biogeography, speciation and invasive biology. While substantial effort has been put into the mitochondrial genomes of Pomacea clades associated with invasive species (P. canaliculata and P. bridgesii groups), comparatively little is known about the mitogenomic organization and structure within the Effusa clade.
Results
This study provides the first complete and annotated mitochondrial genomes of the Effusa clade, based on Pomacea nobilis (Reeve, 1856) and a putative undescribed Pomacea lineage (hereafter Pomacea sp.). The mitochondrial genome of P. nobilis (16,279 − 16,471 bp) and Pomacea sp. (16,355 bp) are among the largest recorded for Pomacea and contain the typical 37 animal genes. A comparative analysis with other Ampullariidae revealed that the Effusa clade differs from both P. canaliculata and P. bridgesii clades mainly by the higher proportion of intergenic regions, the size of many genes (ATP8, ATP6, NAD6, COIII and NAD2), the largest ribosomal RNAs among Pomacea and a putative large repetitive unit in the control region.
Conclusion
These findings highlight the distinctiveness of Effusa clade mitogenomes in comparison with the P. canaliculata and P. bridgesii groups. Further mitogenomic studies on underexplored Pomacea lineages will be important to broaden our understanding of mitochondrial genome diversity among apple snails.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-026-13191-y.
Keywords: Apple snails, Mitochondria, Secondary structure, Phylogeny
Background
Ampullariidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Caenogastropoda) is a primarily circumtropical family of freshwater snails that reach their highest diversity in the New World, with Pomacea Perry, 1810 as the most diverse genus [1, 2]. Due to their Gondwanan origin, large number of species and wide range of ecological and physiological adaptations, apple snails have been proposed as molluscan models for understanding biogeography, speciation and evolutionary adaptations [1]. Additionally, some Pomacea species have been introduced and established outside their native range [2–3], and recent population genetic studies have examined their genetic diversity and structure in Southeast Asia and China [4, 5], where invasive apple snails are significant agricultural pests. While the taxonomic identification of Pomacea species has traditionally relied on shell characters [6], molecular studies, particularly those based on mitochondrial data, have proven useful to clarify the systematics of very similar species [7, 8]. For example, the mitochondrial gene COI was instrumental in distinguishing Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810 from Pomacea canaliculata (Lamarck, 1822), facilitating the identification of species-diagnostic morphological characters [8].
The mitochondrial genome has been widely used as a genetic marker for phylogenetic and evolutionary studies [9–12] due to its relatively small size compared to the nuclear genome, conserved genetic content and high number of copies per cell [13]. Although the typical animal mitogenome size ranges from 16 to 20 kbp and contains 37 genes organized in 13 protein-coding genes (PCGs), 2 ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs) and 22 transfer RNAs (tRNAs) [14], substantial variation in mitochondrial genome size has been observed among Mollusca [15], including some of the largest mitogenomes recorded in Metazoa (Anadara kagoshimensis, 56170 bp [16]). Additionally, gene order rearrangements have been noted in many groups [17, 18], showing potential for elucidating the evolutionary history of freshwater mussels, particularly in Unionoidea [19].
Based on molecular data, Pomacea has been classified into four major clades: the P. canaliculata, P. bridgesii, Effusa and Flagellata groups [20]. Currently, complete mitogenomes are available on GenBank only for the P. canaliculata and P. bridgesii groups (search conducted on December 12, 2025). These efforts mainly reflect the relevance of Pomacea canaliculata (Lamarck, 1822) and Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810 as invasive species, and Pomacea diffusa Blume, 1957 as aquatic pet [3], although initiatives focusing on non-introduced species of Pomacea have recently increased [21]. In contrast, the Effusa and Flagellata clades remain underrepresented in mitochondrial data. Hayes et al. [20]. included only two species within the Effusa group, Pomacea glauca (Linnaeus, 1758) and Pomacea guyanensis (Lamarck, 1822), but more recently Pomacea nobilis (Reeve, 1856) has also been confirmed as part of this clade [22]. This species is native to South America, and its meat is highly valued and widely consumed in the Peruvian Amazon [23]. The objective of this research was to sequence, assemble, and annotate the mitochondrial genomes of P. nobilis and a putative undescribed Pomacea lineage from the Aguaytía River (hereafter Pomacea sp.), representing the first mitogenomes within the Effusa clade. We then incorporated these new data into the Pomacea dataset to compare the structure and organization of apple snail mitogenomes (including P. canaliculata and P. bridgesii clades). This study provides valuable insights into Ampullariidae systematics and Pomacea mitochondrial genome evolution.
Materials and methods
Specimen collection and DNA extraction
Live specimens of P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. were collected in the Peruvian Amazon (Table 1) and maintained in tap water, with lettuce provided ad libitum, in the Molecular Systematics and Phylogeography Laboratory at Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Specimens were relaxed with ethanol, euthanized through thermal shock (4 °C) and immediately preserved in 96% ethanol at room temperature. Genomic DNA was extracted from muscle tissue using the E.Z.N.A. Mollusc DNA Kit (OMEGA Bio-tek) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Isolated genomic DNA was quantified with the Nanodrop Lite Spectrophotometer (ThermoFisher Scientific). We obtained COI sequences from three P. nobilis (GenBank acc. num. MN325113, PX672272, PX672273) and two Pomacea sp. specimens (GenBank acc. num. PX672274 and PX672275), following the protocols of Ramírez et al. [22, 23]. These sequences were compared against the NCBI Core nucleotide database (core_nt) using BLASTn [24] with default parameters to assess their taxonomic affinities and exclude possible contamination or misidentifications. To avoid redundancy, only the highest-identity BLASTn hit for each Pomacea species was included in Additional file 1. All five specimens were processed for whole genome sequencing and deposited as vouchers in the Museo de Historia Natural of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru (Table 1).
Table 1.
Sampling information and mitochondrial genome characteristics
| Taxon | Location | Specimen voucher | GenBank accession | Mitogenome size (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pomacea nobilis (Reeve, 1856) | Shebonal, Huallaga River, Loreto, Peru (5°12’18"S, 75°39’22"W) | AE173SHE | PX692142 | 16,459 |
| Quebrada Pahuaquiro, Marañón River, Loreto, Peru | AE174PAH | PX692143 | 16,471 | |
| Cocha Mullaca, Marañón River, Loreto, Peru (4°35’10.93"S, 73°36 × 32.24”W) | Z58Mul | PX692144 | 16,279 | |
| Pomacea sp. | Aguaytía, Aguaytía River, Ucayali, Peru (9˚6’55.9"S, 75˚30’41.4"W) | X60AGU | PX692145 | 16,355 |
| X63AGU | PX692146 |
Genome sequencing and assembly
Genomic DNA of samples of P. nobilis (specimen vouchers: AE174PAH and Z58Mul) and Pomacea sp. (specimen vouchers: X60AGU and X63AGU) were sheared to reach a mean fragment length of 500 bp using a Covaris M220 Focused-ultrasonicator. The resulting fragmented DNA was used to prepare Illumina libraries using the blunt-end single-tube (BEST) protocol for double-stranded DNA [25], incorporating uniquely barcoded P5/P7 adapters during the indexing PCR. Indexing PCR was carried out in 100 µl reactions composed by 10 µl library template, 0.25 mM each dNTP, 0.25 µM each index primer (dual-barcode), 1 µl Herculase II Fusion DNA polymerase, 20 µl 5X Herculase II Reaction Buffer, and 63 µl molecular biology-grade water, under the following conditions: 95 °C for 3 min, 11 cycles of 95 °C for 20 s, 60 °C for 20 s, 72 °C for 40 s and a final extension of 72 °C for 5 min. Indexed libraries were purified using AMPure XP beads (Beckman Coulter) and diluted in 33 µl EB buffer (Qiagen). The molarity and fragment distribution of each library was measured using HS D1000 ScreenTape assay on a 4200 TapeStation System (Agilent). Equimolar pools were sent to Novogene Europe for whole genome sequencing (paired-end, 150 bp format) on the Illumina NovaSeq X platform. For the remaining specimen voucher of P. nobilis (AE173SHE), gDNA was sent directly to Macrogen Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) for library preparation and whole genome sequencing on the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform. The quality of the data was checked using FastQC 0.12.0 [26]. The number of raw read pairs per sample varied across individuals (Table 2). Raw data was trimmed and filtered using fastp v0.23.4 [27] by removing reads with > 40% low-quality bases (Phred-scaled base quality < Q15) and trimming polyG tails. The mitochondrial genome assembly was performed with GetOrganelle v1.7.7.1 [28] using the Pomacea canaliculata mitochondrial genome (GenBank acc. num. KU052865.1) as reference. We used Bandage v0.9.0 [29] to visualize the assembly graph. To evaluate the reliability of the mitogenome assemblies, filtered reads were mapped back to each assembled genome using BWA 0.7.17 [30]. Coverage depth across the mitochondrial genome was calculated using SAMtools 1.19.2 [31], and coverage profiles were visualized in Microsoft Excel. Tandem repeats were identified in the control region with Tandem repeats finder [32].
Table 2.
Illumina sequencing output and average mitochondrial genome coverage
| Taxon | Specimen voucher | SRA run accession | Read pairs (R1 + R2) |
Total bases (Gbp) |
Mean mitogenome coverage depth (×) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pomacea nobilis (Reeve, 1856) | AE173SHE | SAMN56548275 | 160,128,700 | 24.0 | 1665.5 |
| AE174PAH | SAMN56548276 | 18,160,950 | 2.6 | 110.5 | |
| Z58Mul | SAMN56548277 | 14,371,408 | 2.6 | 190.1 | |
| Pomacea sp. | X60AGU | SAMN56548278 | 21,641,640 | 3.2 | 159.7 |
| X63AGU | SAMN56548279 | 26,161,706 | 3.8 | 364.9 |
Mitochondrial genome annotation
Gene annotation of the mitochondrial genome was performed with MITOS2 v2.1.0 WebServer [33] using the invertebrate genetic code. Annotation and secondary structure of transfer RNAs (tRNAs) were verified using ARWEN 1.2 [34]. Protein-coding genes (PCGs) were manually checked by detecting open reading frames with the NCBI tool ORFfinder [35]. Protein-coding genes were translated using the invertebrate mitochondrial genetic code and inspected for open reading frames. Functional annotation of the ATP6 was verified using InterProScan 5.77–108.0 (InterPro release 108.0) [36], while transmembrane regions were predicted using DeepTMHMM 2.0 [37]. The mitogenome annotation was visualized with Proksee v1.0.0a6 [38]. The ribosomal RNA (rRNA) secondary structures were inferred using R2DT 1.4 [39] and manually optimized based on the reference model of 12S rRNA for Eukaryotes [40] and 16S rRNA for Mollusca [41]. The potential secondary structure of the control region was predicted using RNAfold WebServer [42]. All structures were manually edited using Inkscape 1.1.
Comparative analyses
We compared the mitogenomes of P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. with those of nine other species of the Ampullariidae family (Table 3). We calculated base composition and compositional asymmetry for five datasets: whole mitochondrial genome, control region, PCGs, rRNAs, and tRNAs. Base composition was calculated with MEGA X [43]. Compositional asymmetry was calculated using the following formulae: AT-skew = (A − T)/(A + T) and GC-skew = (G − C)/(G + C) [44]. Relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) was calculated for each amino acid with MEGA X [43]. Nucleotide sequence similarity for each gene was calculated for all Pomacea mitogenomes using MEGA X [43].
Table 3.
Taxonomic classification of the taxa included in the phylogenetic analyses
| Taxonomy | GenBank | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Subclass Heterobranchia | ||
| Aplysia californica Cooper, 1863 | AY569552 | [59] |
| Siphonaria pectinata (Linnaeus, 1758) | AY345049 | [18] |
| Subclass Caenogastropoda | ||
| Unassigned Order, Superfamiliy Cerithioidea | ||
| Turritella bacillum Kiener, 1843 | KU221394 | [60] |
| Melanoides tuberculata (O. F. Müller, 1774) | MZ321058 | [61] |
| Order Littorinomorpha | ||
| Littorina saxatilis (Olivi, 1792) | KU952094 | [62] |
| Aliger gigas (Linnaeus, 1758) | KM245630 | [63] |
| Polinices sagamiensis Pilsbry, 1904 | MK478018 | [64] |
| Cypraea tigris Linnaeus, 1758 | MK783263 | [65] |
| Order Neogastropoda | ||
| Cymbium olla (Linnaeus, 1758) | EU827199 | [66] |
| Columbella adansoni Menke, 1853 | KP716637 | [67] |
| Nassarius gregarius (Grabau & King, 1928) | MT075611 | [68] |
| Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846) | EU170053 | Chandler et al. (unpubl.) |
| Conus quercinus [Lightfoot], 1786 | KY609509 | [69] |
| “Order” Architaenioglossa | ||
| Superfamily Cyclophoroidea | ||
| Family Cyclophoridae | ||
| Cyclophorus martensianus Möllendorff, 1874 | MH700493 | [70] |
| Family Cochlostomatidae | ||
| Obscurella hidalgoi (Crosse, 1864) | KP716638 | [67] |
| Superfamily Viviparoidea | ||
| Family Viviparidae | ||
| Cipangopaludina catayensis (Heude, 1890) | KM503121 | [71] |
| Dalipaludina oxytropoides (Heude, 1889) | KY200976 | [72] |
| Rivularia auriculata (E. von Martens, 1875) | MN264502 | [73] |
| Sinotaia quadrata (W. H. Benson, 1842) | KX688548 | Mu et al. (unpubl.) |
| Viviparus chui Yen, 1937 | KY679829 | [72] |
| Superfamily Ampullarioidea | ||
| Family Ampullariidae | ||
| Marisa cornuarietis (Linnaeus, 1758) | KM100140 | [74] |
| Pila globosa (Swainson, 1822) | OQ682616 | Ayyagari (unpubl.) |
| Pila virens (Lamarck, 1822) | OQ131126 | Ayyagari (unpubl.) |
| Pomacea canaliculata (Lamarck, 1822) | KJ739609 | [75] |
| Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810 | MF401379 | [76] |
| Pomacea occulta Yang & Yu, 2019 | KR350466 | [77] |
| Pomacea diffusa Blume, 1957 | MF373586 | [78] |
| Pomacea aulanieri (Deville & Hupé, 1850) | OR253803 | [21] |
| Pomacea reevei Ampuero & Ramírez, 2023 | OR253802 | [21] |
Phylogenetic analyses
A total of 34 complete mitochondrial genomes (Table 3) were included in the phylogenetic analyses, with two species of the subclass Heterobranchia, Aplysia californica Cooper, 1863 and Siphonaria pectinata (Linnaeus, 1758) as outgroups. PhyloSuite v2 [45] was used to generate, trim, and concatenate the individual alignments. The nucleotide sequences of the 13 PCGs and 2 rRNAs were aligned individually using MAFFT v7.313 [46] and trimmed with Gblocks 0.91b under relaxed conditions [47] using the following parameters: minimum number of sequences for a conserved/flank position (18/18), maximum number of contiguous non-conserved positions (8), minimum block length (10), and allowed gap positions (with half). The best-fit model and partitioning scheme were selected using the corrected Akaike Information Criterion (AICc) with PartitionFinder2 v2.1.1 [48]. Maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian Inference (BI) methods were used to reconstruct the phylogenetic trees on the CIPRES Science Gateway web server [49]. ML analysis was conducted in IQ-TREE 2.1.2 [50] with 10,000 ultrafast bootstrap replicates. BI analysis was performed in MrBayes 3.2 [51], with two independent runs of six Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) chains running for 5 million generations, sampling every 1000 generations, and discarding the first 1.25 million generations (25%) as burn-in. Parameter convergence was assessed in Tracer v1.7 [52], ensuring all effective sample sizes (ESS) were above 200. FigTree v1.4.4 [53] was used to visualize and edit the phylogenetic trees. The final tree was formatted in Inkscape 1.1.
Selection pressure analyses
The non-synonymous (Ka) and synonymous (Ks) substitution rates of the 13 protein-coding genes were estimated using DnaSP v6 [54]. Evidence for episodic positive selection was tested with BUSTED [55] implemented in the Datamonkey Adaptive Evolution Server [56]. An initial screening was conducted using a concatenated dataset of the 13 PCGs across all available Ampullariidae mitogenomes to identify putative clade-specific signals of selection. Subsequently, gene-specific analyses were performed to pinpoint the contribution of individual genes, focusing on the clade that showed evidence of selection in the initial screening. For the remaining clades, only the genes identified in this step were further evaluated. Site-level selection was assessed with FEL [57], and changes in the intensity of selection were analyzed using RELAX [58].
Results
Mitogenome size and structure
The three mitochondrial genomes of P. nobilis ranged from 16,279 to 16,471 bp, whereas the two Pomacea sp. mitogenomes were identical in sequence and length (16355 bp) (Table 1). Each mitogenome contained the typical set of 37 genes (13 PCGs, 2 rRNAs, and 22 tRNAs) plus a control region (CR) (Fig. 1). Twenty-nine genes were encoded on the heavy strand (H), while eight tRNA genes were encoded on the light strand (L) (Fig. 1; Table 4). On average, the PCGs, rRNAs, tRNAs and CR comprised 68.99%, 14.35%, 9.08%, and 3.04% of the mitochondrial genome of P. nobilis, respectively. Very similar values were found in Pomacea sp. (PCGs = 69.19%, rRNAs = 14.37%, tRNAs = 9.10%, CR = 2.78%). The proportion of intergenic regions was very similar among the assembled mitogenomes, representing 4.80–4.86% (791 bp in average) of the mitogenome in P. nobilis and 4.57% (747 bp) in Pomacea sp. In contrast, the assembled control region was more variable, ranging from 375 to 567 bp among the three P. nobilis individuals, whereas both Pomacea sp. specimens exhibited a length of 455 bp.
Fig. 1.

Mitochondrial genome of Pomacea nobilis and Pomacea sp. Different gene types are shown in different colors: Blue for PCGs, Violet for ribosomal RNA and Orange for tRNAs. Gene names are color coded by H (black) or L (red) strand. tRNA genes were named with their corresponding amino acid using the IUPAC single letter codes. The inner circle shows the GC skew. Shell height: 99.4 mm for P. nobilis and 74.8 mm for Pomacea sp. Scale bar: 20 mm
Table 4.
Mitochondrial genome annotation for Pomacea nobilis and Pomacea sp. When values differ between taxa, the annotation for P. nobilis is shown on the left, and the annotation for Pomacea sp. is shown on the right
| Gene | Strand | Length (bp) | Amino acid length | Start codon | Stop codon | Anti-codon | Intergenic length (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COI | H | 1536 | 511 | ATG | TAA | - | 28 |
| COII | H | 687 | 228 | ATG | TAA | - | 19 |
| tRNA-Asp | H | 68 | - | - | - | GTC | 2 / 3 |
| ATP8 | H | 156 | 51 | ATG | TAA | - | 34 |
| ATP6 | H | 768 | 260 | ATG | TAA | - | -39 |
| tRNA-Met | L | 65 / 64 | - | - | - | CAT | 39 |
| tRNA-Tyr | L | 65 / 64 | - | - | - | GTA | 15 / 16 |
| tRNA-Cys | L | 63 | - | - | - | GCA | 37 |
| tRNA-Trp | L | 67 | - | - | - | TCA | 10 / 9 |
| tRNA-Gln | L | 66 | - | - | - | TTG | 62 |
| tRNA-Gly | L | 68 | - | - | - | TCC | 34 |
| tRNA-Glu | L | 68 | - | - | - | TTC | 0 |
| 12S rRNA | H | 996 / 994 | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| tRNA-Val | H | 71 | - | - | - | TAC | 0 |
| 16S rRNA | H | 1357 / 1356 | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| tRNA-Leu1 | H | 66 | - | - | - | TAG | 0 |
| tRNA-Leu2 | H | 68 | - | - | - | TAA | 0 |
| NAD1 | H | 945 | 314 | ATG | TAA | - | 19 |
| tRNA-Pro | H | 67 | - | - | - | TGG | 0 |
| NAD6 | H | 498 | 165 | ATG | TAA | - | 5 |
| CytB | H | 1140 | 379 | ATG | TAG | - | 8 |
| tRNA-Ser2 | H | 63 | - | - | - | TGA | 33 / 34 |
| tRNA-Thr | L | 74 | - | - | - | TGT | 14 |
| NAD4L | H | 297 | 98 | ATG | TAA | - | -7 |
| NAD4 | H | 1362 | 453 | ATG | TAA | - | 16 |
| tRNA-His | H | 66 / 65 | - | - | - | GTG | 0 |
| NAD5 | H | 1710 | 569 | ATG | TAA | - | 14 |
| tRNA-Phe | H | 68 | - | - | - | GAA | 0 |
| CR | H | 375–567 / 455 | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| COIII | H | 786 | 261 | ATG | TAA | - | 80 / 81 |
| tRNA-Lys | H | 73 | - | - | - | TTT | 46 |
| tRNA-Ala | H | 67 | - | - | - | TGC | 111 |
| tRNA-Arg | H | 68 / 69 | - | - | - | TCG | 43 / 42 |
| tRNA-Asn | H | 71 | - | - | - | GTT | 74 |
| tRNA-Ile | H | 70 | - | - | - | GAT | 3 |
| NAD3 | H | 354 | 117 | ATG | TAA | - | 41 / 40 |
| tRNA-Ser1 | H | 68 | - | - | - | GCT | 0 |
| NAD2 | H | 1077 | 358 | ATG | TAA | - | 4 |
Within Pomacea, intergenic regions represented an average of 2.55% of the mitogenome in the P. canaliculata clade (P. canaliculata: 2.43%; P. maculata: 2.44%; P. occulta: 2.64%; P. reevei: 2.69%) and 3.39% in the P. bridgesii clade (P. diffusa: 3.32%; P. aulanieri: 3.46%). When compared with the additional Ampullariidae included in our dataset, higher proportions of intergenic regions were observed in Marisa cornuarietis (5.38%), Pila globosa (6.81%), and Pila virens (7.06%). Aside from the control region, the largest intergenic region in both P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. (111 bp) was located between tRNA-Ala and tRNA-Arg (Table 4). Additional non-coding regions with comparable lengths in both lineages were found between COIII/tRNA-Lys (80–81 bp), tRNA-Asn/tRNA-Ile (74 bp), and tRNA-Gln/tRNA-Gly (62 bp). The two lineages also shared the same overlapping regions: ATP6/tRNA-Met (39 bp) and NAD4L/NAD4 (7 bp).
Mitochondrial base composition and protein-coding gene features
The overall base composition of the mitochondrial genome of P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. is very similar and aligns with the base composition of other Ampullariidae mitogenomes, although P. nobilis displays the highest AT-skew (followed by Pomacea sp.) and the lowest GC-skew in the family (Table 5). On average, species of the Effusa clade exhibit slightly higher A + T content (69.27–69.64%) than those in the P. bridgesii clade (68.85–69.49%), but lower than species in the P. canaliculata clade (70.98–72.31%). The A + T content, AT-skew and GC-skew for the PCGs, rRNAs, tRNAs and CR of P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. are consistent with values observed in other Ampullariidae (Table 6), although the percentage of A + T content varies according to the annotated feature in both lineages, being highest in the control region and lowest for the PCGs (CR> rRNAs> tRNAs> PCGs).
Table 5.
Nucleotide composition and skew statistics for Ampullariidae mitogenomes excluding the control region. For Pomacea nobilis, values represent averages from three sequences
| Taxon | Size (bp) | A% | T% | G% | C% | A + T% | G + C% | AT skew | GC skew |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pila globosa | 16,318 | 29.56 | 41.55 | 16.57 | 12.32 | 71.11 | 28.89 | -0.169 | 0.147 |
| Pila virens | 16,369 | 27.11 | 41.82 | 19.38 | 11.69 | 68.93 | 31.07 | -0.214 | 0.248 |
| M. cornuarietis | 15,860 | 28.95 | 41.03 | 16.70 | 13.33 | 69.97 | 30.03 | -0.173 | 0.112 |
| P. canaliculata | 15,348 | 30.27 | 41.24 | 15.67 | 12.82 | 71.51 | 28.49 | -0.153 | 0.100 |
| P. maculatta | 15,363 | 30.76 | 41.15 | 15.32 | 12.77 | 71.91 | 28.09 | -0.145 | 0.091 |
| P. occulta | 15,373 | 30.70 | 41.10 | 15.33 | 12.87 | 71.80 | 28.20 | -0.145 | 0.087 |
| P. reevei | 15,368 | 29.98 | 40.88 | 15.92 | 13.22 | 70.86 | 29.14 | -0.154 | 0.093 |
| P. aulanieri | 15,572 | 29.35 | 39.41 | 16.47 | 14.77 | 68.76 | 31.24 | -0.146 | 0.054 |
| P. diffusa | 15,567 | 29.50 | 39.78 | 16.37 | 14.36 | 69.27 | 30.73 | -0.148 | 0.065 |
| Pomacea nobilis | 15,904 | 30.13 | 38.97 | 16.15 | 14.76 | 69.09 | 30.91 | -0.128 | 0.045 |
| Pomacea sp. | 15,900 | 30.19 | 39.19 | 16.11 | 14.52 | 69.38 | 30.62 | -0.130 | 0.052 |
Table 6.
Nucleotide content and skew statistics for major gene categories of Ampullariidae mitogenomes. For Pomacea nobilis, values represent averages from three sequences
| Taxon | PCGs | rRNAs | tRNAs | CR | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A + T% | AT skew |
GC Skew |
A + T% | AT skew |
GC Skew |
A + T% | AT skew |
GC skew |
A + T% | AT skew |
GC Skew |
|
| Pila globosa | 69.73 | -0.22 | 0.13 | 72.32 | -0.01 | 0.21 | 71.96 | -0.03 | 0.18 | 74.32 | -0.03 | 0.17 |
| Pila virens | 67.44 | -0.28 | 0.21 | 70.94 | -0.07 | 0.33 | 71.67 | -0.01 | 0.18 | 63.40 | -0.10 | 0.49 |
| M. cornuarietis | 68.98 | -0.23 | 0.08 | 71.53 | -0.03 | 0.24 | 68.07 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 71.43 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| P. canaliculata | 70.69 | -0.21 | 0.09 | 72.87 | 0.01 | 0.19 | 71.95 | -0.03 | 0.08 | 79.39 | 0.26 | 0.41 |
| P. maculatta | 71.14 | -0.20 | 0.07 | 73.11 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 71.92 | -0.03 | 0.09 | 86.57 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
| P. occulta | 70.96 | -0.14 | 0.09 | 73.02 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 71.97 | -0.03 | 0.09 | 85.82 | -0.01 | 0.00 |
| P. reevei | 69.98 | -0.21 | 0.07 | 72.63 | 0.03 | 0.18 | 71.81 | 0.00 | 0.15 | 77.40 | -0.05 | 0.18 |
| P. aulanieri | 67.57 | -0.20 | 0.03 | 71.58 | 0.03 | 0.16 | 69.63 | -0.02 | 0.15 | 71.56 | -0.07 | -0.17 |
| P. diffusa | 67.98 | -0.21 | 0.05 | 73.11 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 71.57 | -0.02 | 0.06 | 73.70 | 0.03 | -0.06 |
| Pomacea nobilis | 67.98 | -0.19 | 0.02 | 70.96 | 0.04 | 0.15 | 70.29 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 75.08 | -0.10 | -0.03 |
| Pomacea sp. | 68.13 | -0.20 | 0.02 | 71.45 | 0.04 | 0.15 | 69.74 | -0.01 | 0.15 | 78.68 | -0.12 | 0.01 |
Among the 13 PCGs, NAD5 is the longest (1710 bp) and ATP8 the shortest (156 bp) in both lineages. When compared with additional mitogenomes in our dataset, only five genes (COI, COII, CytB, NAD4L, and NAD3) maintain the same length across all Pomacea species. In contrast, ATP8, ATP6, NAD6, COIII, and NAD2 show lengths unique to P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. Notably, ATP6 was annotated as 768 bp in both lineages, exceeding the lengths observed in other available ampullariid mitogenomes. Alignment of nucleotide and amino acid sequences indicated that this difference results from a 3′ extension shared by the sampled representatives of the Effusa clade (Additional files 2 and 3). Among the remaining genes, NAD1 and NAD4 in both species match the lengths observed in the P. bridgesii clade, whereas NAD5 aligns with that of the P. canaliculata clade. While all PCGs begin with the typical ATG codon, twelve of the 13 PCGs end with TAA, except for CytB, which uses TAG as stop codon. The analysis of the relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) in P. nobilis (Fig. 2) and Pomacea sp. (Additional file 4) shows that UUA (Leu), UUU (Leu) and AUU (Ile) are the three most commonly used codons. On the other hand, the least frequently used codon is CGC (Arg), followed closely by CGG (Arg), CCC (Pro) and GCG (Ala) in P. nobilis; and CCG (Pro) and CGG (Arg) in Pomacea sp. Overall, codons ending in A or T are predominant in both species (78.7%).
Fig. 2.

Relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) of the mitogenome of P. nobilis
Mitochondrial rRNAs, tRNAs, and control region features
The 12S rRNA (994–996 bp) and 16S rRNA (1356–1357 bp) of P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. are the largest recorded for Pomacea, exceeding those observed in the species of the P. canaliculata clade (909–936 bp for 12S, 1331–1340 bp for 16S) and P. bridgesii clade (952–960 bp for 12S, 1346–1348 bp for 16S), although smaller than in Pila (1012–1017 bp for 12S, 1417–1423 bp for 16S). The alignment of all available complete 12S rRNA sequences of Pomacea resulted in a length of 1002 bp, with 615 conserved sites (61.38%). The predicted secondary structure comprises four domains (I–IV), with Domains III (71.58% of invariant sites) and IV (85.14% of invariant sites) being the most conserved, whereas some regions in the Domains I and II showed high variability, such as stems 8, 24 and 25, and loops 13, 31 and 42 (Fig. 3). Some differences were also observed between P. nobilis and Pomacea sp., especially in stems 8, 13 and 16 of Domain I and stem 23 of Domain II. The alignment of all available complete 16S rRNA sequences of Pomacea resulted in a length of 1385 bp, with 853 conserved sites (61.59%). The predicted secondary structure comprises six domains (I–VI), with Domains IV (80.28% of invariant sites) and V (73.44% of invariant sites) being the most conserved, whereas stem-loops D2 + D4, D13 + D14, D21 + D22, E3 + E4 and H3 show a larger proportion of variable sites, with small size differences in some loops, particularly in stem-loops D13 + D14 and H4 (Figs. 4 and 5).
Fig. 3.

Secondary structure of the 12S rRNA in Pomacea nobilis and Pomacea sp. Conserved sites within Pomacea are marked in black, while variable positions between P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. are marked in red. Intraspecific variation within P. nobilis or within other Pomacea species is not highlighted
Fig. 4.

Secondary structure of the Domains I-III of the 16S rRNA in Pomacea nobilis and Pomacea sp. Conserved sites within Pomacea are marked in black, while variable positions between P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. are marked in red. Intraspecific variation within P. nobilis or within other Pomacea species is not highlighted
Fig. 5.

Secondary structure of the Domains IV-VI of the 16S rRNA in Pomacea nobilis and Pomacea sp. Conserved sites within Pomacea are marked in black, while variable positions between P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. are marked in red. Intraspecific variation within P. nobilis or within other Pomacea species is not highlighted
The tRNA genes in both P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. ranged from 63 bp (tRNA-Cys and tRNA-Ser) to 74 bp (tRNA-Thr). A comparison of the secondary structure of the 22 tRNAs in both species with those of other Pomacea showed that the typical clover-leaf structure with four stem-loops is conserved in most tRNAs (Fig. 6), although slight differences in the size of the D and T loops were observed in some tRNAs (e.g. tRNA-Gln and tRNA-Ala). The only exceptions are the tRNA genes for serine, in which the D-arm can be replaced by a large bulge. This modified structure occurs in tRNA-Ser1 in Pila, Marisa, and most species of the P. canaliculata clade, but not in the P. bridgesii clade, where tRNA-Ser2 is the modified tRNA. In P. nobilis and Pomacea sp., both tRNAs for serine exhibit the modified structure (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6.

Shared secondary structure of the tRNAs in the mitogenomes of Pomacea nobilis and Pomacea sp. Variable sites between both lineages are marked in red
The length range of the assembled control region in P. nobilis (375–567 bp) and Pomacea sp. (455 bp) falls between the values previously reported for the P. bridgesii (524–806 bp) and P. canaliculata clades (141–433 bp). This region showed a high AT content and contained several AT-rich tracts, with tandem repeat analysis suggesting different candidate repeat motifs among the mitogenomes analyzed (Table 7). Read coverage was generally uniform across most of the mitogenome but showed a pronounced peak in the control region in all samples (Fig. 7).
Table 7.
Tandem repeats identified in the mitochondrial control region
| Taxon | Specimen voucher | Control region length (bp) | Repeat motif | Repeat type | Repeat length (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pomacea nobilis | AE173SHE | 555 | AT(n) | imperfect microsatellite | 130 |
| AE174PAH | 567 | CTCTCTTTCTCT | imperfect tandem repeat | 57 | |
| Z58Mul | 375 | (TA)n | perfect microsatellite | 41 | |
| Pomacea sp. | X60AGU/ X63AGU | 455 | (TA)n | imperfect microsatellite | 81 |
Fig. 7.

Read coverage across the assembled mitogenomes of P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. Segments corresponding to the control region (CR) and ATP6 gene are highlighted
In P. nobilis, the predicted secondary structure of the control region (Fig. 8) suggests the presence of three main loops (I–III) and several smaller stem-loop structures, with marked differences in the development of Loop I and in the number and size of stem-loops between Loops I and II among the three mitogenomes analyzed. In contrast, the predicted secondary structure of the assembled control region of Pomacea sp. showed a different organization with a putative large central loop surrounded by multiple stem-loop structures (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8.

Predicted secondary structure of the mitochondrial control region of Pomacea nobilis (specimen vouchers: AE173SHE, AE174PAH, and Z58Mul) and Pomacea sp. (specimen vouchers: X60AGU and X63AGU)
Phylogenetic analysis and genetic distances
Maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) phylogenetic analyses produced the same topology (Fig. 9), although the BI showed higher support values (0.98–1.00) than the ML (48–100). Viviparoidea, Ampullarioidea, and Cyclophoroidea were each recovered as monophyletic superfamilies. Viviparoidea was recovered as the sister lineage to Sorbeoconcha, although support for this relationship was inconsistent between analyses (BI: 0.98, ML: 48), indicating uncertainty in deeper caenogastropod relationships. Relationships within Ampullariidae were well-supported: the P. canaliculata and P. bridgesii clades were recovered as monophyletic groups, and the Effusa clade (P. nobilis + Pomacea sp.) formed a strongly supported sister group to both clades (BI: 1.00, ML: 100). Based on the available whole mitogenomes, the observed intraspecific variation in P. nobilis was 2.58% among samples from Loreto, whereas the divergence between P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. was 7.23%.
Fig. 9.

Phylogenetic relationships of Pomacea and other Caenogastropoda species based on the nucleotide sequences of 13 PCGs and 2 rRNAs. The Bayesian inference (BI) tree is shown. Posterior probabilities (BI) and bootstrap support values (%) from the Maximum likelihood (ML) analysis are shown above and below the branches, respectively. Samples sequenced in this study are shown in color red (P. nobilis) and blue (Pomacea sp.). The scale represents the number of substitutions per site
A comparison of the nucleotide sequence similarity among Pomacea mitogenomes (Fig. 10) showed consistent higher similarities among species within the same clade (P. canaliculata, P. bridgesii, and Effusa), than between species from different clades. This analysis also supports that species from P. canaliculata group are more similar to P. bridgesii species than to the Effusa clade, which is consistent with the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 9). This comparison also indicated that the least conserved genes are NAD6, NAD2 and ATP8, suggesting their potential utility for population-level genetic studies.
Fig. 10.

Pairwise nucleotide sequence similarity of the 13 PCGs and 2 rRNAs among the three Pomacea clades: P. canaliculata group (P. canaliculata, P. maculata, and P. occulta), P. bridgesii group (P. diffusa and P. aulanieri), and Effusa group (P. nobilis and Pomacea sp.)
Selection pressure analyses
The Ka/Ks ratios calculated for the 13 PCGs were all below 1, reflecting overall low rates of nonsynonymous substitutions across the mitochondrial genome of Pomacea (Fig. 11). The highest ratios were observed in ATP8 (0.253), NAD2 (0.232), and NAD4L (0.223), whereas the cytochrome oxidase genes showed comparatively lower values, indicating variation in evolutionary rates among genes. No significant signal of positive selection was detected in BUSTED for most genes (p > 0.05). However, the gene encoding cytochrome c oxidase subunit III (COIII) in the P. bridgesii clade showed evidence of episodic diversifying selection (p = 0.025), although this signal was not significant after multiple testing correction using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure (FDR-adjusted p = 0.076). Site-level analysis with FEL identified numerous codons under purifying selection but no sites under significant positive selection. The RELAX test did not detect a significant change in the intensity of selection either in the concatenated dataset or in the COIII gene within the P. bridgesii clade.
Fig. 11.

Rates of non-synonymous (Ka) over synonymous (Ks) substitution rates of the 13 protein-coding genes in Pomacea
Discussion
Mitogenome size and structure
The size of Pomacea mitogenomes ranges from 15,516 bp in P. occulta [77] to 16,373 bp in P. diffusa [78], placing P. nobilis (16279–16471) and Pomacea sp. (16355 bp) among the largest reported for the genus. However, the largest mitogenomes within Ampullariidae have been observed in Pila, particularly P. virens (16839 bp) and P. globosa (16903 bp) (Ayyagari, unpublished). The comparative mitogenome analyses also revealed that the proportion of intergenic regions in both P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. (∼4.8%) is higher than in other Pomacea species (2.43–3.46%), although lower than in M. cornuarietis (5.38%) and Pila (6.81–7.06%). Likewise, we detected differences in the location and size of their largest intergenic region (111 bp between tRNA-Ala and tRNA-Arg) when compared with other Pomacea, in which the largest intergenic region occurs between COIII and tRNA-Lys (47–50 bp in the P. canaliculata clade and 65–67 bp in the P. bridgesii clade) [21, 76, 79]. In M. cornuarietis, the largest intergenic region (145 bp) is located between tRNA-Ala and tRNA-Arg [74], whereas in Pila this region is longer (214–306 bp) and positioned between tRNA-Gln and tRNA-Gly. Thus, although length variation in PCGs, rRNAs, and tRNAs has been reported within Ampullariidae [21], differences in mitogenome size are primarily driven by the expansion of intergenic regions.
The mitogenomes of P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. include a putative 39 bp overlap between ATP6 and tRNA-Met, a feature not previously reported in other Ampullariidae [21]. In contrast, the 7 bp overlap between NAD4L and NAD4 identified in both species corresponds to a highly conserved feature across Ampullariidae [21, 76, 77, 79] and is similarly widespread in most Caenogastropoda [68, 80–82]. Other overlapping regions reported in Pomacea, such as NAD1/tRNA-Pro in P. canaliculata, P. maculata and P. occulta [76, 79], and NAD5/tRNA-Phe in P. reevei, P. aulanieri and P. diffusa [21], were not found in P. nobilis or Pomacea sp. Gene overlaps are relatively common in animal mitochondrial genomes and have been proposed to arise as a consequence of selective pressures toward genome minimization and compact gene organization [83–85]. Previous studies have also suggested that the transcriptional implications of overlapping regions may depend on whether the genes are encoded on the same or opposite strands, with opposite-strand overlaps potentially requiring less complex transcript processing [85]. Notably, the putative ATP6/tRNA-Met overlap identified in the Effusa representatives involves genes encoded on opposite strands. This may facilitate the evolutionary persistence of this overlap, which could represent a distinctive feature of the Effusa clade among available ampullariid mitogenomes.
Mitochondrial base composition and protein-coding gene features
The overall base composition and skew patterns of P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. are consistent with other Ampullariidae, although both species exhibit the highest AT-skew and lowest GC-skew in the family. Slight differences in A + T content among Pomacea clades (Effusa, P. bridgesii, and P. canaliculata) reflect minor compositional variation, while differences among genomic features (CR> rRNAs> tRNAs> PCGs) are consistent with previously reported patterns in gastropods [80, 82, 86, 87] and may be related to functional differences [15].
We recovered consistent differences in the length of several PCGs within Pomacea, with both Effusa lineages analyzed here showing the smallest ATP8 (156 bp), and an unusually long ATP6 annotation (768 bp), together with the longest NAD6 (498 bp), COIII (786 bp), and NAD2 (1077 bp) recorded for the genus. Notably, NAD1 and NAD4 in both Effusa lineages match the lengths observed in the P. bridgesii clade, while NAD5 aligns with that of the P. canaliculata clade. These patterns not only confirm the inter-clade differences reported between the P. bridgesii and P. canaliculata groups [21], but also indicate that the Effusa clade possesses a distinct pattern in PCG lengths, reinforcing its differentiation from the other two clades.
The annotation analyses suggested that the ATP6 gene in both P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. may be unusually long (768 bp), exceeding typical lengths reported in both Ampullariidae and other Caenogastropoda, where values below 700 bp are most common (GenBank survey, Dec 2025). Read mapping showed high coverage (102–1376×) and no evidence of indels or ambiguous sites at the terminal region, supporting the integrity of the assembled region and continuity of the predicted open reading frame. Inspection of the nucleotide alignment showed no evidence of premature termination or frame disruption, revealing instead a variation in the stop codon positions across lineages, with a notable 3’ extension in the Effusa clade (Additional file 2). Gene boundaries were defined based on the longest uninterrupted ORF consistent with these read-mapping signals and conserved protein domains. InterPro analysis confirmed the presence of the conserved ATP synthase subunit a domain, and transmembrane prediction recovered the expected five helices, with additional residues forming a short C-terminal extension. Finally, alignment of ATP6 amino acid sequences across available Pomacea and other Ampullariidae revealed that all sampled representatives of the Effusa clade share this extension, whereas other species terminate earlier (Additional file 3).
One alternative explanation could involve the use of an incomplete stop codon, a feature rarely documented in Caenogastropoda [72, 80, 81, 88]. Under this scenario, ATP6 could terminate closer to the adjacent tRNA-Met gene, and the apparent 39 bp overlap would reflect differences in gene boundary annotation rather than a true C-terminal extension. However, incomplete stop codons have not previously been reported in Ampullariidae, and the adjacent tRNA-Met is encoded on the opposite strand, potentially reducing constraints associated with the observed overlap [85]. Together, these observations are consistent with an extended ATP6 coding region in the sampled Effusa representatives, although this interpretation remains tentative and would benefit from future validation using transcriptomic data.
Mitochondrial rRNAs, tRNAs, and control region features
The 12S rRNA and 16S rRNA of P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. are the largest reported within Pomacea, exceeding the ranges observed in the P. canaliculata and P. bridgesii clades, and their predicted secondary structures are consistent with previous reports in the genus [21] and other mollusks [41, 89, 90]. This includes the presence of specific features proposed for Caenogastropoda in the 16S rRNA secondary structure, such as the stem-loop D13-D14 in Domain II, the development of Domain III and the presence of a bulge-stem-loop structure (G16) in Domain V [91], that are present in both P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. Although the comparison of the secondary structure of the mitochondrial RNA in Pomacea and other Caenogastropoda [41] revealed that they share the same number and arrangement of stems and loops, some differences were identified within Pomacea. Notably in 12S rRNA, loop 31 and stem 40 are larger in P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. than in P. aulanieri and P. reevei [21], suggesting that secondary-structure comparisons of the least conserved domains of 12S and 16S rRNA may be useful for distinguishing closely related species.
We found that in both tRNA for serine in P. nobilis and Pomacea sp., the clover-leaf secondary structure is modified by a large bulge replacing the typical stem-loop structure in the D-domain (Fig. 6). Among Ampullaridae, tRNA-Ser1 exhibits this modified structure in Pila, Marisa, and most species of the P. canaliculata clade (P. canaliculata, P. maculata and P. occulta) [21, 76], but not in the P. bridgesii clade, where tRNA-Ser2 is the modified tRNA [21]. The only other Ampullariidae with both tRNAs for serine modified is P. reevei of the P. canaliculata group [21]. Jühling et al. [92]. reported that the loss of the D-domain in tRNA-Ser1 is widespread across many groups of animals, including Mollusca, whereas the modification of tRNA-Ser2 is a rarer feature. Outside Pomacea, the loss of the D-domain in tRNA-Ser2 has been reported in only a few Caenogastropoda [70, 80, 93, 94].
The resulting coverage plots (Fig. 7) show that reads map across the control region in all samples, but the coverage is heterogeneous, with evident peaks and drops, particularly within this region, and its length and structure should therefore be interpreted with caution. Despite these limitations, tandem repeat analysis suggested the presence of (TA)n motifs and short AT-rich repeats, with apparent differences among the three P. nobilis mitogenomes (Table 7). Similar AT-rich repeats have been described in the control region of other molluscan mitogenomes, such as in Haliotis rubra [95], where variation in repeat number has been proposed as a potential genetic marker. Additionally, differences in the number and size of predicted stem-loop structures were observed among P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. (Fig. 8), as well as in comparison with other species [21]. These observations suggest that the control region of Pomacea may harbor variable and potentially informative features, but further validation using long-read sequencing approaches will be necessary to confirm their biological relevance.
Phylogenetic analysis and genetic distances
The phylogenetic analyses recovered Viviparoidea, Ampullarioidea, and Cyclophoroidea as monophyletic groups, consistent with previous mitogenomic studies [21, 70, 79, 80]. However, deeper caenogastropod relationships remain uncertain, and our discussion therefore focuses on relationships within Ampullariidae, where mitogenome data provide more robust resolution. The Effusa group was first recognized as a distinct clade within Pomacea based on molecular data from P. guyanensis and P. glauca [20]. Subsequent work identified P. nobilis as a third confirmed member of this clade [22], a species widely distributed across the Peruvian Amazon basin and characterized by its large and robust shell [22, 23]. The present study further expands the known diversity of the Effusa clade by identifying an additional lineage from the Aguaytía River, suggesting that species diversity within this group may be underestimated in the western Amazon.
Based on the whole mitogenomes, we found an intraspecific variation of 2.58% in P. nobilis, slightly lower than the variation reported by Ramírez et al. [23]. based on COI sequences from Loreto (3.17%). Similarly, the interspecific distance between P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. (7.23%) is comparable to the genetic distance between P. maculata and P. occulta (6.84%), also based on whole mitogenomes, supporting the genetic distinctiveness of the Aguaytía lineage relative to P. nobilis. Comparison of the COI sequence of Pomacea sp. from the Aguaytía River with publicly available COI sequences failed to reveal correspondence with any currently described species. Together with its phylogenetic placement within the Effusa clade, these results support the distinctiveness of the Aguaytía lineage. However, its precise taxonomic identity remains unresolved, and it is therefore treated here as an unidentified Pomacea lineage pending formal taxonomic assessment.
Selection pressure analyses
The selection pressure analyses indicate that mitochondrial protein-coding genes in Pomacea are predominantly evolving under purifying selection, as reflected by Ka/Ks ratios consistently below 1. This pattern is typical for animal mitochondrial genomes, where strong functional constraints maintain the integrity of oxidative phosphorylation genes [96]. Among the genes analyzed, ATP8, NAD2, and NAD4L showed comparatively higher Ka/Ks ratios, suggesting relatively relaxed constraints and higher evolutionary rates. These results are consistent with previous observations that certain NADH dehydrogenase genes and ATP8 tend to evolve more rapidly in gastropod mitogenomes [97, 98]. The comparatively elevated rates in these genes support their potential utility as markers for population-level or phylogeographic studies in Pomacea. Although an episodic signal was detected in COIII within the P. bridgesii clade, this result was not significant after multiple testing correction and should therefore be interpreted cautiously.
Conclusions
This study reports the first complete mitochondrial genomes of the Effusa clade, based on P. nobilis and a putative undescribed Pomacea lineage (Pomacea sp.). Comparisons with the P. canaliculata and P. bridgesii clades revealed notable differences in genome size, intergenic regions, gene lengths, tRNA secondary structures, whereas the control region showed potentially distinct features that require further validation. Similar associations between mitogenome organization and phylogenetic relationships have previously been reported for the P. canaliculata and P. bridgesii clades [21], and our results suggest that this pattern may extend to the Effusa clade. Together, these observations indicate that aspects of mitochondrial genome architecture may retain phylogenetic signal within Pomacea and reflect evolutionary modifications accumulated during the diversification of its major clades. Further exploration of additional lineages may reveal whether the mitogenomic features observed in P. nobilis and Pomacea sp. are widespread within the Effusa clade and could aid in refining our understanding of mitogenome evolution in Pomacea.
Supplementary Information
Additional file 1: Closest BLASTn matches of the COI sequences obtained from Pomacea sp. specimens from the Aguaytía River against sequences available in GenBank. Additional file 2: Figure S1. Alignment of ATP6 nucleotide sequences across available Pomacea and other Ampullariidae, highlighting the variation in stop codon positions. Red boxes indicate the different termination sites: the ancestral stop codon position shared by Pila, Marisa, and most Pomacea species; the shifted stop codon in P. diffusa; and the distinct stop codon at the 3' extension terminal in the Effusa clade. Additional file 3: Figure S2. Alignment of ATP6 amino acid sequences across available Pomacea and other Ampullariidae. Additional file 4: Figure S3. Relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) of the mitogenome of Pomacea sp.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to R. Chujutalli and M. Solis for their help in the collection of material. We thank E. Hinojosa for his support in managing the DNA used for NGS, in the Molecular Systematics and Phylogeography laboratory of the Faculty of Biological Sciences of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization, RR and AM; writing of the original draft preparation, AM; writing, review and editing, RR; revision of the manuscript, JM, JLR, BS, NO, CC and MDM; project administration and funding acquisition, RR and MDM. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology (incl St. Olavs Hospital - Trondheim University Hospital). This research is part of the Molecular Evolution of Peruvian Biota research group; and was supported by the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos – R.R. N° 05753-2021-R/UNMSM and project number B21100471 (to RR). This study was also supported in part by the Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills, through the Norwegian Partnership Programme for Global Academic Cooperation (NORPART), project NORPART2021/10475 ‘BiGTREE’ (to MDM).
Data availability
The COI and mitogenome sequences of Pomacea nobilis and Pomacea sp. are accessible at the NCBI GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/; accession numbers PX672272-PX672275 and PX692142-PX692146, respectively). Raw Illumina reads are available in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under BioProject PRJNA1438792 (SAMN56548275–SAMN56548279).
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Rina Ramírez, Email: rramirezm@unmsm.edu.pe.
Michael D. Martin, Email: mike.martin@ntnu.no
References
- 1.Hayes KA, Cowie RH, Jørgensen A, Schultheiß R, Albrecht C, Thiengo SC. Molluscan models in evolutionary biology: apple snails (Gastropoda: Ampullariidae) as a system for addressing fundamental questions. Am Malacol Bull. 2009;27(1/2):47–58. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hayes KA, Burks RL, Castro-Vazquez A, Darby PC, Heras H, Martín PR, Qiu J, Thiengo SC, Vega IA, Wada T, Yusa Y, Burela S, Cadierno MP, Cueto JA, Dellagnola FA, Dreon MS, Frassa MV, Giraud-Billoud M, Godoy MS, Ituarte S, Koch E, Matsukura K, Pasquevich MY, Rodriguez C, Saveanu L, Seuffert ME, Strong EE, Sun J, Tamburi NE, Tiecher MJ, Turner RL, Valentine-Darby PL, Cowie RH. Insights from an integrated view of the biology of apple snails (Caenogastropoda: Ampullariidae). Malacologia. 2015;58(1–2):245–302. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Joshi RC, Cowie RH, Sebastian LS. Biology and management of invasive apple snails. Maligaya, Science City of Muñoz. Nueva Ecija, Philippines: Philippine Rice Research Institute; 2017. p. 406. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Zhao B, Luo M, Zhang J, Liu Y, Deng Z, Gong X. Genetic diversity of two globally invasive snails in Asia and Americas in relation with agricultural habitats and climate factors. Diversity. 2022;14(12):1069. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lu Y, Luo F, Zhou A, Yi C, Chen H, Li J, Guo Y, Xie Y, Zhang W, Lin D, Yang Y, Wu Z, Zhang Y, Xu S, Hu W. Whole-genome sequencing of the invasive golden apple snail Pomacea canaliculata from Asia reveals rapid expansion and adaptive evolution. GigaScience. 2024;13:giae064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cazzaniga NJ. Old species and new concepts in the taxonomy of Pomacea (Gastropoda: Ampullariidae). Biocell. 2002;26:71–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rawlings TA, Hayes KA, Cowie RH, Collins TM. The identity, distribution, and impacts of non-native apple snails in the continental United States. BMC Evol Biol. 2007;7:1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hayes KA, Cowie RH, Thiengo SC, Strong EE. Comparing apples with apples: clarifying the identities of two highly invasive Neotropical Ampullariidae (Caenogastropoda). Zool J Linn Soc. 2012;166(4):723–53. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Cameron SL. Insect mitochondrial genomics: implications for evolution and phylogeny. Annu Rev Entomol. 2014;59:95–117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lavrov DV, Pett W. Animal mitochondrial DNA as we do not know it: mt-genome organization and evolution in nonbilaterian lineages. Genome Biol Evol. 2016;8(9):2896–913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Tan MH, Gan HM, Lee YP, Bracken-Grissom H, Chan TY, Miller AD, Austin CM. Comparative mitogenomics of the Decapoda reveals evolutionary heterogeneity in architecture and composition. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):10756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ghiselli F, Iannello M, Piccinini G, Milani L. Bivalve molluscs as model systems for studying mitochondrial biology. Integr Comp Biol. 2021;61(5):1699–714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Smith DR. The past, present and future of mitochondrial genomics: have we sequenced enough mtDNAs? Brief Funct Genomics. 2016;15(1):47–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Boore JL. Animal mitochondrial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999;27(8):1767–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ghiselli F, Gomes-dos-Santos A, Adema CM, Lopes-Lima M, Sharbrough J, Boore JL. Molluscan mitochondrial genomes break the rules. Philos Trans R Soc B. 2021;376(1825):20200159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kong L, Li Y, Kocot KM, Yang Y, Qi L, Li Q, Halanych KM. Mitogenomics reveals phylogenetic relationships of Arcoida (Mollusca, Bivalvia) and multiple independent expansions and contractions in mitochondrial genome size. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2020;150:106857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Akasaki T, Nikaido M, Tsuchiya K, Segawa S, Hasegawa M, Okada N. Extensive mitochondrial gene arrangements in coleoid Cephalopoda and their phylogenetic implications. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2016;38(3):648–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Grande C, Templado J, Zardoya R. Evolution of gastropod mitochondrial genome arrangements. BMC Evol Biol. 2008;8:61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Froufe E, Bolotov I, Aldridge DC, Bogan AE, Breton S, Gan HM, Kovitvadhi U, Kovitvadhi S, Riccardi N, Secci-Petretto G, Sousa R, Teixeira A, Varandas S, Zanatta D, Zieritz A, Fonseca MM, Lopes-Lima M. Mesozoic mitogenome rearrangements and freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) macroevolution. Heredity. 2020;124(1):182–96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hayes KA, Cowie RH, Thiengo SC. A global phylogeny of apple snails: Gondwanan origin, generic relationships, and the influence of outgroup choice (Caenogastropoda: Ampullariidae). Biol J Linn Soc. 2009;98(1):61–76. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Mendivil A, Ramírez R, Morin J, Ramirez JL, Siccha-Ramirez R, Britzke R, Rivera F, Ampuero A, Oliveros N, Congrains C. Comparative Mitogenome Analysis of Two Native Apple Snail Species (Ampullariidae, Pomacea) from Peruvian Amazon. Genes. 2023;14(9):1769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ramírez R, Ramirez JL, Rivera F, Justino S, Solís M, Morín J, Ampuero A, Mendivil A, Congrains C. Do not judge a snail by its shell: molecular identification of Pomacea species (Gastropoda: Ampullariidae), with particular reference to the Peruvian Amazonian giant apple snail, erroneously synonymized with Pomacea maculata. Arch Molluskenkd. 2022;151(1):1–11. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Ramírez R, Solis M, Ampuero A, Morín J, Jimenez-Vasquez V, Ramirez JL, Congrains C, Temoche H, Shiga B. Identificación molecular y relaciones evolutivas de Pomacea nobilis, base para la autenticación específica del churo negro de la Amazonia peruana. Rev Peru Biol. 2020;27(2):139–48. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3):403–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Carøe C, Gopalakrishnan S, Vinner L, Mak SST, Sinding MHS, Samaniego JA, Wales N, Sicheritz-Pontén T, Gilbert MTP. Single-tube library preparation for degraded DNA. Methods Ecol Evol. 2017;9(2):410–9. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Andrews S. May. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/. Accessed 12 2025.
- 27.Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(17):i884–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Jin JJ, Yu WB, Yang JB, Song Y, DePamphilis CW, Yi TS, Li DZ. GetOrganelle: a fast and versatile toolkit for accurate de novo assembly of organelle genomes. Genome Biol. 2020;21:1–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Wick RR, Schultz MB, Zobel J, Holt KE. Bandage: interactive visualization of de novo genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(20):3350–2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(14):1754–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G, Durbin R, et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(16):2078–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Benson G. Tandem repeats finder: a program to analyze DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999;27(2):573–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Donath A, Jühling F, Al-Arab M, Bernhart SH, Reinhardt F, Stadler PF, Middendorf M, Bernt M. Improved annotation of protein-coding genes boundaries in metazoan mitochondrial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(20):10543–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Laslett D, Canbäck B. ARWEN: a program to detect tRNA genes in metazoan mitochondrial nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2018;24(2):172–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Wheeler DL, Chappey C, Lash AE, Leipe DD, Madden TL, Schuler GD, Tatusova TA, Rapp BA. Database resources of the national center for biotechnology information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(1):10–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Blum M, Chang HY, Chuguransky S, Grego T, Kandasaamy S, Mitchell A, Nuka G, Paysan-Lafosse T, Qureshi M, Raj S, et al. The InterPro protein families and domains database: 20 years on. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(D1):D344–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Hallgren J, Tsirigos KD, Pedersen MD, Almagro Armenteros JJ, Marcatili P, Nielsen H, Krogh A, Winther O. DeepTMHMM predicts alpha and beta transmembrane proteins using deep neural networks. bioRxiv. 2022;2022.04.08.487609.
- 38.Grant JR, Enns E, Marinier E, Mandal A, Herman EK, Chen CY, Graham M, Van Domselaar G, Stothard P. Proksee: in-depth characterization and visualization of bacterial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51(W1):W484–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Sweeney BA, Hoksza D, Nawrocki EP, Ribas CE, Madeira F, Cannone JJ, Gutell R, Maddala A, Meade CD, Williams LD, Petrov AS, Chan PP, Lowe TM, Finn RD, Petrov AI. R2DT is a framework for predicting and visualising RNA secondary structure using templates. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):3494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Hickson RE, Simon C, Cooper A, Spicer GS, Sullivan J, Penny D. Conserved sequence motifs, alignment, and secondary structure for the third domain of animal 12S rRNA. Mol Biol Evol. 1996;13(1):150–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Lydeard C, Holznagel WE, Schnare MN, Gutell RR. Phylogenetic analysis of molluscan mitochondrial LSU rDNA sequences and secondary structures. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2000;15(1):83–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Hofacker IL. Vienna RNA secondary structure server. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;31(13):3429–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35(6):1547–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Perna NT, Kocher TD. Patterns of nucleotide composition at fourfold degenerate sites of animal mitochondrial genomes. J Mol Evol. 1995;41:353–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Zhao D, Ye T, Gao F, Jakovlić I, Qiong L, Tong Y, Liu X, Song R, Liu F, Lian Z, Zou H, L W-X, Wang G-T, Zeng B, Zhang D. PhyloSuite v2: The development of an all-in‐one, efficient and visualization‐oriented suite for molecular dating analysis and other advanced features. iMeta. 2025;4(6):e70095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(4):772–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Talavera G, Castresana J. Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Syst Biol. 2007;56(4):564–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Lanfear R, Frandsen PB, Wright AM, Senfeld T, Calcott B. PartitionFinder 2: new methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34(3):772–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T. Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE 2010), New Orleans (US), November 2010. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); 2010. pp. 1–8.
- 50.Nguyen LT, Schmidt HA, Von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32(1):268–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Ronquist F, Teslenko M, Van Der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol. 2012;61(3):539–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Rambaut A, Drummond AJ, Xie D, Baele G, Suchard MA. Posterior summarisation in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Syst Biol. 2018;67(5):901–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Rambaut A. FigTree v1.4.4. 2018. Available from: http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/
- 54.Rozas J, Ferrer-Mata A, Sánchez-Delbarrio JC, Guirao-Rico S, Librado P, Ramos-Onsins SE, Sánchez-Gracia A. DnaSP v6: DNA Sequence Polymorphism Analysis of Large Dataset. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34:3299–302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Murrell B, Weaver S, Smith MD, Wertheim JO, Murrell S, Aylward A, Eren K, Pollner T, Martin DP, Smith DM, Scheffler K, Kosakovsky Pond SL. Gene-wide identification of episodic selection. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32:1365–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Weaver S, Shank SD, Spielman SJ, Li M, Muse SV, Kosakovsky Pond SL. Datamonkey 2.0: a modern web application for characterizing selective and other evolutionary processes. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35:773–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Kosakovsky Pond SL, Frost SDW. Not so different after all: a comparison of methods for detecting amino acid sites under selection. Mol Biol Evol. 2005;22:1208–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Wertheim JO, Murrell B, Smith MD, Kosakovsky Pond SL, Scheffler K. RELAX: detecting relaxed selection in a phylogenetic framework. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32:820–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Knudsen B, Kohn AB, Nahir B, McFadden CS, Moroz LL. Complete DNA sequence of the mitochondrial genome of the sea-slug, Aplysia californica: conservation of the gene order in Euthyneura. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2006;38(2):459–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Zeng L, Wang Y, Zhang J, Wu C. Complete mitochondrial genome of Turritella terebra bacillum. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2016;1(1):350–1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Ling Y, Zhang Y, Ngatia JN, Zhou H. The complete mitochondrial genome of Melanoides tuberculata (Müller, 1774) in Guangdong, China. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2022;7(7):1319–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Marques JP, Sotelo G, Larsson T, Johannesson K, Panova M, Faria R. Comparative mitogenomic analysis of three species of periwinkles: Littorina fabalis, L. obtusata and L. saxatilis. Mar Genom. 2017;32:41–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Márquez EJ, Castro ER, Alzate JF. Mitochondrial genome of the endangered marine gastropod Strombus gigas Linnaeus, 1758 (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Mitochondrial DNA Part A. 2016;27(2):1516–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Liu H, Yang Y, Sun SE, Kong L, Li Q. Mitogenomic phylogeny of the Naticidae (Gastropoda: Littorinimorpha) reveals monophyly of the Polinicinae. Zool Scr. 2020;49(3):29–306. [Google Scholar]
- 65.Pu L, Liu H, Yang M, Li B, Xia G, Shen M, Wang G. Complete mitochondrial genome of tiger cowrie Cypraea tigris (Linnaeus, 1758). Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2019;4(2):2755–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Cunha RL, Grande C, Zardoya R. Neogastropod phylogenetic relationships based on entire mitochondrial genomes. BMC Evol Biol. 2009;9:1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Osca D, Templado J, Zardoya R. Caenogastropod mitogenomics. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015;93:118–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Zhou D, Dong X, Li Z, Zhang D, Tian Y, Hao Z. The complete mitochondrial genome of Nassarius gregarius. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2020;5(2):1751–2. [Google Scholar]
- 69.Gao B, Peng C, Chen Q, Zhang J, Shi Q. Mitochondrial genome sequencing of a vermivorous cone snail Conus quercinus supports the correlative analysis between phylogenetic relationships and dietary types of Conus species. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0193053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Xie GL, Köhler F, Ouyang S, Wu XP. The first complete mitochondrial genome of a cyclophorid land snail, with implications for architaenioglossan relationships (Mollusca, Caenogastropoda, Cyclophoroidea). Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;133:522–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Yang H, Zhang JE, Luo H, Luo M, Guo J, Deng Z, Zhao B. The complete mitochondrial genome of the mudsnail Cipangopaludina cathayensis (Gastropoda: Viviparidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part A. 2016;27(3):1892–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Wang JG, Zhang D, Jakovlić I, Wang WM. Sequencing of the complete mitochondrial genomes of eight freshwater snail species exposes pervasive paraphyly within the Viviparidae family (Caenogastropoda). PLoS ONE. 2017;12(7):e0181699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Zhang C, Guo J, Yang H, Zhang JE. Complete mitochondrial genome of Rivularia auriculata (Gastropoda, Viviparidae) with phylogenetic consideration. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2019;4(2):4049–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Wang M, Qiu JW. Complete mitochondrial genome of the giant ramshorn snail Marisa cornuarietis (Gastropoda: Ampullariidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part A. 2016;27(3):1734–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Zhou X, Chen Y, Zhu S, Xu H, Liu Y, Chen L. The complete mitochondrial genome of Pomacea canaliculata (Gastropoda: Ampullariidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part A. 2016;27(2):884–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Yang QQ, Liu SW, Song F, Liu GF, Yu XP. Comparative mitogenome analysis on species of four apple snails (Ampullariidae: Pomacea). Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;118:525–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Yang Q, Liu S, Song F, Li H, Liu J, Liu G, Yu X. The mitochondrial genome of Pomacea maculata (Gastropoda: Ampullariidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part A. 2016;27(4):2895–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Liu S, Yang Q, He C, Yu X. The complete mitochondrial genome of Pomacea diffusa (Gastropoda: Ampullariidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2017;2(2):491–2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Yang H, Zhang JE, Xia J, Yang J, Guo J, Deng Z, Luo M. Comparative characterization of the complete mitochondrial genomes of the three apple snails (Gastropoda: Ampullariidae) and the phylogenetic analyses. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(11):3646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Rawlings TA, MacInnis MJ, Bieler R, Boore JL, Collins TM. Sessile snails, dynamic genomes: gene rearrangements within the mitochondrial genome of a family of caenogastropod molluscs. BMC Genomics. 2010;11:1–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Uribe JE, Puillandre N, Zardoya R. Beyond Conus: phylogenetic relationships of Conidae based on complete mitochondrial genomes. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2017;107:142–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Fourdrilis S, de Frias Martins AM, Backeljau T. Relation between mitochondrial DNA hyperdiversity, mutation rate and mitochondrial genome evolution in Melarhaphe neritoides (Gastropoda: Littorinidae) and other Caenogastropoda. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):17964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Yamazaki N, Ueshima R, Terrett JA, Yokobori SI, Kaifu M, Segawa R, Kobayashi T, Ken-ichi N, Ueda T, Nishikawa, Watanabe K, Thomas RZ. Evolution of pulmonate gastropod mitochondrial genomes: comparisons of gene organizations of Euhadra, Cepaea and Albinaria and implications of unusual tRNA secondary structures. Genetics. 1997;145(3):749–58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Li J, Xie M, Zhang F, Shu J, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Xiang H, Jiang W. Insights into phylogenetic relationships and gene rearrangements: complete mitogenomes of two sympatric species in the genus Rana (Anura, Ranidae). ZooKeys. 2024;1216:63–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Doublet V, Ubrig E, Alioua A, Bouchon D, Marcadé I, Maréchal-Drouard L. Large gene overlaps and tRNA processing in the compact mitochondrial genome of the crustacean Armadillidium vulgare. RNA Biol. 2015;12(10):1159–68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Jiang D, Zheng X, Zeng X, Kong L, Li Q. The complete mitochondrial genome of Harpago chiragra and Lambis lambis (Gastropoda: Stromboidea): implications on the Littorinimorpha phylogeny. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):17683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Guo B, Lü Z. Sequence comparison of the mitochondrial genomes in two species of the genus Nerita (Gastropoda: Neritimorpha: Neritidae): Phylogenetic implications and divergence time estimation for Neritimorpha. Mol Biol Rep. 2020;47:7903–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Peretolchina TE, Sitnikova TY, Sherbakov DY. The complete mitochondrial genomes of four Baikal molluscs from the endemic family Baicaliidae (Caenogastropoda: Truncatelloida). J Molluscan Stud. 2020;86(3):201–9. [Google Scholar]
- 89.Medina M, Collins TM, Walsh PJ. mtDNA ribosomal gene phylogeny of sea hares in the genus Aplysia (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia, Anaspidea): implications for comparative neurobiology. Syst Biol. 2001;50(5):676–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Guzmán LB, Vogler RE, Beltramino AA. The mitochondrial genome of the semi-slug Omalonyx unguis (Gastropoda: Succineidae) and the phylogenetic relationships within Stylommatophora. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(6):e0253724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Lydeard C, Holznagel WE, Ueshima R, Kurabayashi A. Systematic implications of extreme loss or reduction of mitochondrial LSU rRNA helical-loop structures in gastropods. Malacologia. 2002;44(2):349–52. [Google Scholar]
- 92.Jühling F, Pütz J, Bernt M, Donath A, Middendorf M, Florentz C, Stadler PF. Improved systematic tRNA gene annotation allows new insights into the evolution of mitochondrial tRNA structures and into the mechanisms of mitochondrial genome rearrangements. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(7):2833–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Bandyopadhyay PK, Stevenson BJ, Cady MT, Olivera BM, Wolstenholme DR. Complete mitochondrial DNA sequence of a Conoidean gastropod, Lophiotoma (Xenuroturris) cerithiformis: gene order and gastropod phylogeny. Toxicon. 2016;48(1):29–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Lee Y, Park JK. Complete mitochondrial genome of Conus lischkeanus Weinkauff, 1875 (Neogastropoda, Conidae) and phylogenetic implications of the evolutionary diversification of dietary types of Conus species. ZooKeys. 2022;1088:173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Maynard BT, Kerr LJ, McKiernan JM, Jansen ES, Hanna PJ. Mitochondrial DNA sequence and gene organization in the Australian blacklip abalone Haliotis rubra (Leach). Mar Biotechnol. 2005;7:645–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Popadin KY, Nikolaev SI, Junier T, Baranova M, Antonarakis SE. Purifying selection in mammalian mitochondrial protein-coding genes is highly effective and congruent with evolution of nuclear genes. Mol Biol Evol. 2012;30(2):347–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Ma Q, Li F, Zheng J, Liu C, Wang A, Yang Y, Gu Z. Mitogenomic phylogeny of Cypraeidae (Gastropoda: Mesogastropoda). Front Ecol Evol. 2023;11:1138297. [Google Scholar]
- 98.Tao K, Gao Y, Yin H, Liang Q, Yang Q, Yu X. Comparative mitogenome analyses of fifteen Ramshorn snails and insights into the phylogeny of Planorbidae (Gastropoda: Hygrophila). Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(4):2279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Additional file 1: Closest BLASTn matches of the COI sequences obtained from Pomacea sp. specimens from the Aguaytía River against sequences available in GenBank. Additional file 2: Figure S1. Alignment of ATP6 nucleotide sequences across available Pomacea and other Ampullariidae, highlighting the variation in stop codon positions. Red boxes indicate the different termination sites: the ancestral stop codon position shared by Pila, Marisa, and most Pomacea species; the shifted stop codon in P. diffusa; and the distinct stop codon at the 3' extension terminal in the Effusa clade. Additional file 3: Figure S2. Alignment of ATP6 amino acid sequences across available Pomacea and other Ampullariidae. Additional file 4: Figure S3. Relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) of the mitogenome of Pomacea sp.
Data Availability Statement
The COI and mitogenome sequences of Pomacea nobilis and Pomacea sp. are accessible at the NCBI GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/; accession numbers PX672272-PX672275 and PX692142-PX692146, respectively). Raw Illumina reads are available in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under BioProject PRJNA1438792 (SAMN56548275–SAMN56548279).
