4.8 Article

A landscape of complex tandem repeats within individual human genomes

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-41262-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study uses a high-precision algorithm to determine complex TR structures from long accurate sequences, revealing the abundance and diversity of TRs. It finds that complex TRs are more common than single-unit TRs, and that they tend to consist of <10-bp units. Several known disease-associated TRs are found in loci with extended TRs, making them potential candidates for disease association.
Markedly expanded tandem repeats (TRs) have been correlated with similar to 60 diseases. TR diversity has been considered a clue toward understanding missing heritability. However, haplotype-resolved long TRs remain mostly hidden or blacked out because their complex structures (TRs composed of various units and minisatellites containing >10-bp units) make them difficult to determine accurately with existing methods. Here, using a high-precision algorithm to determine complex TR structures from long, accurate reads of PacBio HiFi, an investigation of 270 Japanese control samples yields several genome-wide findings. Approximately 322,000 TRs are difficult to impute from the surrounding single-nucleotide variants. Greater genetic divergence of TR loci is significantly correlated with more events of younger replication slippage. Complex TRs are more abundant than single-unit TRs, and a tendency for complex TRs to consist of <10-bp units and single-unit TRs to be minisatellites is statistically significant at loci with >= 500-bp TRs. Of note, 8909 loci with extended TRs (>100b longer than the mode) contain several known disease-associated TRs and are considered candidates for association with disorders. Overall, complex TRs and minisatellites are found to be abundant and diverse, even in genetically small Japanese populations, yielding insights into the landscape of long TRs.

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