4.8 Article

Origins and functional impact of copy number variation in the human genome

期刊

NATURE
卷 464, 期 7289, 页码 704-712

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature08516

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [077006/Z/05/Z]
  2. Canada Foundation of Innovation and Ontario Innovation Trust
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  4. Genome Canada/Ontario Genomics Institute
  5. McLaughlin Centre for Molecular Medicine
  6. Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation
  7. Hospital for Sick Children Foundation
  8. Department of Pathology at Brigham and Women's Hospital
  9. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [HG004221, GM081533]
  10. Academy of Finland
  11. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences [TMF/DA/5801]
  12. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [825.06.031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Structural variations of DNA greater than 1 kilobase in size account for most bases that vary among human genomes, but are still relatively under-ascertained. Here we use tiling oligonucleotide microarrays, comprising 42 million probes, to generate a comprehensive map of 11,700 copy number variations (CNVs) greater than 443 base pairs, of which most (8,599) have been validated independently. For 4,978 of these CNVs, we generated reference genotypes from 450 individuals of European, African or East Asian ancestry. The predominant mutational mechanisms differ among CNV size classes. Retrotransposition has duplicated and inserted some coding and non-coding DNA segments randomly around the genome. Furthermore, by correlation with known trait-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we identified 30 loci with CNVs that are candidates for influencing disease susceptibility. Despite this, having assessed the completeness of our map and the patterns of linkage disequilibrium between CNVs and SNPs, we conclude that, for complex traits, the heritability void left by genome-wide association studies will not be accounted for by common CNVs.

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

4.8
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