4.5 Article

Complex gene rearrangements caused by serial replication slippage

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 125-134

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.20202

关键词

complex gene rearrangements; complexity; deletion junctions; double Mutations; indel; mutational mechanism; serial replication slippage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The now,classical model of replication slippage can in principle account for both simple deletions and tandem duplications associated with short direct repeats. Invariably, a single replication slippage event is invoked, irrespective of whether simple deletions or tandem duplications are involved. However, we recently identified three complex duplicational. insertions that could also be accounted for by a model of serial replication slippage. We postulate that a sizeable proportion of hitherto inexplicable complex gene rearrangements may be explained by such a model. To test this idea, and to assess the generality of our initial findings, a number of complex gene rearrangements were selected from the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Some 95 % (20/21) of these mutations were found to be explicable by twin or multiple rounds of replication slippage, the sole exception being a double deletion in the F9 gene that is associated with DNA sequences that appear capable of adopting non-B conformations. Of the 20 complex gene rearrangements, 19 (seven simple double deletions, one triple deletion, two double mutational events comprising a simple deletion and a simple insertion, six simple indels that may constitute a novel and non,canonical class of gene conversion, and three complex indels) were compatible with the model of serial replication slippage in cis; the remaining indel in the MECP2 gene, however, appears to have arisen via interchromosomal replication slippage in trans. Our postulate that serial replication slippage may account for a variety of complex gene rearrangements has therefore received broad support from the study of the above diverse series of mutations.

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