4.5 Article

Consideration of the haplotype diversity at nonallelic homologous recombination hotspots improves the precision of rearrangement breakpoint identification

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 38, 期 12, 页码 1711-1722

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.23319

关键词

copy number variants; genomic breakpoints; NAHR; Neurofibromatosis Type-1; NF1; NF1 microdeletion; nonallelic homologous recombination

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [KE724/12-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Precise characterization of nonallelic homologous recombination (NAHR) breakpoints is key to identifying those features that influence NAHR frequency. Until now, analysis of NAHR-mediated rearrangements has generally been performed by comparison of the breakpoint-spanning sequences with the human genome reference sequence. We show here that the haplotype diversity of NAHR hotspots may interfere with breakpoint-mapping. We studied the transmitting parents of individuals with germline type-1 NF1 deletions mediated by NAHR within the paralogous recombination site 1 (PRS1) or paralogous recombination site 2 (PRS2) hotspots. Several parental wild-type PRS1 and PRS2 haplotypes were identified that exhibited considerable sequence differences with respect to the reference sequence, which also affected the number of predicted PRDM9-binding sites. Sequence comparisons between the parental wild-type PRS1 or PRS2 haplotypes and the deletion breakpoint-spanning sequences from the patients (method #2) turned out to be an accurate means to assign NF1 deletion breakpoints and proved superior to crude reference sequence comparisons that neglect to consider haplotype diversity (method #1). The mean length of the deletion breakpoint regions assigned by method #2 was 269-bp in contrast to 502-bp by method #1. Our findings imply that paralog-specific haplotype diversity of NAHR hotspots (such as PRS2) and population-specific haplotype diversity must be taken into account in order to accurately ascertain NAHR-mediated rearrangement breakpoints.

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

4.5
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