4.8 Article

Differences in genome-wide repeat sequence instability conferred by proofreading and mismatch repair defects

Journal

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
Volume 43, Issue 8, Pages 4067-4074

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkv271

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Division of Intramural Research of the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [Z01 ES065070]
  2. National Institutes of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mutation rates are used to calibrate molecular clocks and to link genetic variants with human disease. However, mutation rates are not uniform across each eukaryotic genome. Rates for insertion/deletion (indel) mutations have been found to vary widely when examined in vitro and at specific loci in vivo. Here, we report the genome-wide rates of formation and repair of indels made during replication of yeast nuclear DNA. Using over 6000 indels accumulated in four mismatch repair (MMR) defective strains, and statistical corrections for false negatives, we find that indel rates increase by 100 000-fold with increasing homonucleotide run length, representing the greatest effect on replication fidelity of any known genomic parameter. Nonetheless, long genomic homopolymer runs are overrepresented relative to random chance, implying positive selection. Proofreading defects in the replicative polymerases selectively increase indel rates in short repetitive tracts, likely reflecting the distance over which Pols delta and I mu interact with duplex DNA upstream of the polymerase active site. In contrast, MMR defects hugely increase indel mutagenesis in long repetitive sequences. Because repetitive sequences are not uniformly distributed among genomic functional elements, the quantitatively different consequences on genome-wide repeat sequence instability conferred by defects in proofreading and MMR have important biological implications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available