4.6 Article

Regional genomic instability predisposes to complex dystrophin gene rearrangements

期刊

HUMAN GENETICS
卷 126, 期 3, 页码 411-423

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00439-009-0679-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations in the dystrophin gene (DMD) cause Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophies and the majority of cases are due to DMD gene rearrangements. Despite the high incidence of these aberrations, little is known about their causative molecular mechanism(s). We examined 792 DMD/BMD clinical samples by oligonucleotide array-CGH and report on the junction sequence analysis of 15 unique deletion cases and three complex intragenic rearrangements to elucidate potential underlying mechanism(s). Furthermore, we present three cases with intergenic rearrangements involving DMD and neighboring loci. The cases with intragenic rearrangements include an inversion with flanking deleted sequences; a duplicated segment inserted in direct orientation into a deleted region; and a splicing mutation adjacent to a deletion. Bioinformatic analysis demonstrated that 7 of 12 breakpoints combined among 3 complex cases aligned with repetitive sequences, as compared to 4 of 30 breakpoints for the 15 deletion cases. Moreover, the inversion/deletion case may involve a stem-loop structure that has contributed to the initiation of this rearrangement. For the duplication/deletion and splicing mutation/deletion cases, the presence of the first mutation, either a duplication or point mutation, may have elicited the deletion events in an attempt to correct preexisting mutations. While NHEJ is one potential mechanism for these complex rearrangements, the highly complex junction sequence of the inversion/deletion case suggests the involvement of a replication-based mechanism. Our results support the notion that regional genomic instability, aided by the presence of repetitive elements, a stem-loop structure, and possibly preexisting mutations, may elicit complex rearrangements of the DMD gene.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据