4.8 Article

Evidence in disease and non-disease contexts that nonsense mutations cause altered splicing via motif disruption

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 49, 期 17, 页码 9665-9685

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkab750

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [ERC-2014ADG 669207]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigates the impact of disruptions in exonic cis motifs, such as ESEs, on premature termination codon-containing transcripts. Results suggest that ESEs are prone to disruption by nonsense mutations, leading to low NAS rates. Additionally, nucleotide-based machine learning approaches can predict PTCs and pathogenic variants enriched in ESEs.
Transcripts containing premature termination codons (PTCs) can be subject to nonsense-associated alternative splicing (NAS). Two models have been evoked to explain this, scanning and splice motif disruption. The latter postulates that exonic cis motifs, such as exonic splice enhancers (ESEs), are disrupted by nonsense mutations. We employ genome-wide transcriptomic and k-mer enrichment methods to scrutinize this model. First, we show that ESEs are prone to disruptive nonsense mutations owing to their purine richness and paucity of TGA, TAA and TAG. The motif model correctly predicts that NAS rates should be low ( we estimate 5-30%) and approximately in line with estimates for the rate at which random point mutations disrupt splicing (8-20%). Further, we find that, as expected, NAS-associated PTCs are predictable from nucleotide-based machine learning approaches to predict splice disruption and, at least for pathogenic variants, are enriched in ESEs. Finally, we find that both in and out of frame mutations to TAA. TGA or TAG are associated with exon skipping. While a higher relative frequency of such skip-inducing mutations in-frame than out of frame lends some credence to the scanning model, these results reinforce the importance of considering splice motif modulation to understand the etiology of PTC-associated disease.

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