4.7 Article

Analysis of variable retroduplications in human populations suggests coupling of retrotransposition to cell division

Journal

GENOME RESEARCH
Volume 23, Issue 12, Pages 2042-2052

Publisher

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.154625.113

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [F32AG039979, RR19895]
  2. A.L. Williams Professorship funds
  3. Yale University Biomedical High Performance Computing Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In primates and other animals, reverse transcription of mRNA followed by genomic integration creates retroduplications. Expressed retroduplications are either retrogenes coding for functioning proteins, or expressed processed pseudogenes, which can function as noncoding RNAs. To date, little is known about the variation in retroduplications in terms of their presence or absence across individuals in the human population. We have developed new methodologies that allow us to identify novel retroduplications (i.e., those not present in the reference genome), to find their insertion points, and to genotype them. Using these methods, we catalogued and analyzed 174 retroduplication variants in almost one thousand humans, which were sequenced as part of Phase 1 of The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. The accuracy of our data set was corroborated by (1) multiple lines of sequencing evidence for retroduplication (e. g., depth of coverage in exons vs. introns), (2) experimental validation, and (3) the fact that we can reconstruct a correct phylogenetic tree of human subpopulations based solely on retroduplications. We also show that parent genes of retroduplication variants tend to be expressed at the M-to-G1 transition in the cell cycle and that M-to-G1 expressed genes have more copies of fixed retroduplications than genes expressed at other times. These findings suggest that cell division is coupled to retrotransposition and, perhaps, is even a requirement for it.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available