4.6 Article

Age-Related and Heteroplasmy-Related Variation in Human mtDNA Copy Number

期刊

PLOS GENETICS
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005939

关键词

-

资金

  1. Max Planck Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mitochondrial (mt) genome is present in many copies in human cells, and intra-individual variation in mtDNA sequences is known as heteroplasmy. Recent studies found that heteroplasmies are highly tissue-specific, site-specific, and allele-specific, however the functional implications have not been explored. This study investigates variation in mtDNA copy numbers (mtCN) in 12 different tissues obtained at autopsy from 152 individuals (ranging in age from 3 days to 96 years). Three different methods to estimate mtCN were compared: shotgun sequencing (in 4 tissues), capture-enriched sequencing (in 12 tissues) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR, in 2 tissues). The highest precision in mtCN estimation was achieved using shotgun sequencing data. However, capture-enrichment data provide reliable estimates of relative (albeit not absolute) mtCNs. Comparisons of mtCN from different tissues of the same individual revealed that mtCNs in different tissues are, with few exceptions, uncorrelated. Hence, each tissue of an individual seems to regulate mtCN in a tissue-related rather than an individual-dependent manner. Skeletal muscle (SM) samples showed an age-related decrease in mtCN that was especially pronounced in males, while there was an age-related increase in mtCN for liver (LIV) samples. MtCN in SM samples was significantly negatively correlated with both the total number of heteroplasmic sites and with minor allele frequency (MAF) at two heteroplasmic sites, 408 and 16327. Heteroplasmies at both sites are highly specific for SM, accumulate with aging and are part of functional elements that regulate mtDNA replication. These data support the hypothesis that selection acting on these heteroplasmic sites is reducing mtCN in SM of older individuals.

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