4.8 Article

Repair of adjacent single-strand breaks is often accompanied by the formation of tandem sequence duplications in plant genomes

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1603823113

关键词

double-strand break repair; CRISPR/Cas; genome editing; homologous recombination

资金

  1. European Research Council [COMREC 26852]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Duplication of existing sequences is a major mechanism of genome evolution. It has been previously shown that duplications can occur by replication slippage, unequal sister chromatid exchange, homologous recombination, and aberrant double-strand break-induced synthesis-dependent strand annealing reactions. In a recent study, the abundant presence of short direct repeats was documented by comparative bioinformatics analysis of different rice genomes, and the hypothesis was put forward that such duplications might arise due to the concerted repair of adjacent single-strand breaks (SSBs). Applying the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, we were able to test this hypothesis experimentally in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Using a Cas9 nickase to induce adjacent genomic SSBs in different regions of the genome (genic, intergenic, and heterochromatic) and at different distances (similar to 20, 50, and 100 bps), we analyzed the repair outcomes by deep sequencing. In addition to deletions, we regularly detected the formation of direct repeats close to the break sites, independent of the genomic context. The formation of these duplications as well as deletions may be associated with the presence of microhomologies. Most interestingly, we found that even the induction of two SSBs on the same DNA strand can cause genome alterations, albeit at a much lower level. Because such a scenario reflects a natural step during nucleotide excision repair, and given that the germline is set aside only late during development in plants, the repair of adjacent SSBs indeed seems to have an important influence on the shaping of plant genomes during evolution.

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