4.6 Article

A Massively Parallel Pipeline to Clone DNA Variants and Examine Molecular Phenotypes of Human Disease Mutations

期刊

PLOS GENETICS
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004819

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) [R01 GM104424]
  2. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA167824]
  3. NIGMS [R01 GM097272]
  4. BIOBASE GmbH
  5. Cardiff University
  6. Cornell Fleming Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the functional relevance of DNA variants is essential for all exome and genome sequencing projects. However, current mutagenesis cloning protocols require Sanger sequencing, and thus are prohibitively costly and labor-intensive. We describe a massively-parallel site-directed mutagenesis approach, Clone-seq'', leveraging next-generation sequencing to rapidly and cost-effectively generate a large number of mutant alleles. Using Clone-seq, we further develop a comparative interactome-scanning pipeline integrating high-throughput GFP, yeast two-hybrid (Y2H), and mass spectrometry assays to systematically evaluate the functional impact of mutations on protein stability and interactions. We use this pipeline to show that disease mutations on protein-protein interaction interfaces are significantly more likely than those away from interfaces to disrupt corresponding interactions. We also find that mutation pairs with similar molecular phenotypes in terms of both protein stability and interactions are significantly more likely to cause the same disease than those with different molecular phenotypes, validating the in vivo biological relevance of our high-throughput GFP and Y2H assays, and indicating that both assays can be used to determine candidate disease mutations in the future. The general scheme of our experimental pipeline can be readily expanded to other types of interactome-mapping methods to comprehensively evaluate the functional relevance of all DNA variants, including those in non-coding regions.

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