4.5 Review

Mitochondrial DNA Rearrangements in Health and Disease-A Comprehensive Study

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 1-14

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.22452

关键词

mitochondrial DNA; deletions; duplications; breakage hotspots; mitochondrial disease; tumors

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology
  2. Fundo Social Europeu
  3. Programa Operacional Potencial Humano [SFRH/BPD/44637/2008, PTDC/CVT/100881/2008]
  4. Investigator FCT program
  5. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) [PEst-C/MAR/LA0015/2013]
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/44637/2008, PTDC/CVT/100881/2008] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) rearrangements cause a wide variety of highly debilitating and often fatal disorders and have been implicated in aging and age-associated disease. Here, we present a meta-analytical study of mtDNA deletions (n=730) and partial duplications (n=37) using information from more than 300 studies published over the last 30 years. We show that both classes of mtDNA rearrangements are unequally distributed among disorders and their breakpoints have different genomic locations. We also demonstrate that 100% of cases with sporadic mtDNA deletions and 97.3% with duplications have no breakpoints in the 16,071 breakage hotspot site, in contrast with deletions from healthy and aged tissues. Notably, most deletions removing a section of the D-loop are found in tumors. Deleted mtDNA molecules lacking the origin of L-strand replication (O-L) represent only 9.5% of all reported cases, whereas extra origins of replication occur in all duplications. As previously shown for deletions, imperfect stretches of homology are common in duplication breakpoints. Finally, we provide a dedicated Website with detailed information on deleted/duplicated mtDNA regions to facilitate the design of efficient methods for identification and screening of rearranged mitochondrial genomes (available at http://www.portugene.com/mtDNArearrangements.html).

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