4.5 Article

Somatic mosaicism for copy number variation in differentiated human tissues

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 29, 期 9, 页码 1118-1124

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/humu.20815

关键词

array-CGH; structural variation; segmental duplications; genetic heterogeneity; CNV; somatic mosaicism

资金

  1. University of Alabama at Birmingham
  2. Swedish Cancer Society
  3. Swedish Children's Cancer Foundation
  4. U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two major types of genetic variation are known: single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and a more recently discovered structural variation, involving changes in copy number (CNVs) of kilobase- to megabase-sized chromosomal segments. It is unknown whether CNVs arise in somatic cells, but it is, however, generally assumed that normal cells are genetically identical. We tested 34 tissue samples from three subjects and, having analyzed for each tissue <= 10(-6) of all cells expected in an adult human, we observed at least six CNVs, affecting a single organ or one or more tissues of the same subject. The CNVs ranged from 82 to 176kb, often encompassing known genes, potentially affecting gene function. Our results indicate that humans are commonly affected by somatic mosaicism for stochastic CNVs, which occur in a substantial fraction of cells. The majority of described CNVs were previously shown to be polymorphic between unrelated subjects, Suggesting that some CNVs previously reported as germline might represent somatic events, since in most studies of this kind, only one tissue is typically examined and analysis of parents for the studied subjects is not routinely performed. A considerable number of human phenotypes are a consequence of a somatic process. Thus, our conclusions will be important for the delineation of genetic factors behind these phenotypes. Consequently, biobanks should consider sampling multiple tissues to better address mosaicism in the studies of somatic disorders.

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

4.5
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