4.7 Article

Genomic rearrangements resulting in PLP1 deletion occur by nonhomologous end joining and cause different dysmyelinating phenotypes in males and females

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 71, 期 4, 页码 838-853

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/342728

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD038420, P30 HD024064, P01 HD38420, P30 HD24064] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS27042, R01 NS027042] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the majority of patients with Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease, duplication of the proteolipid protein gene PLP1 is responsible, whereas deletion of PLP1 is infrequent. Genomic mechanisms for these submicroscopic chromosomal rearrangements remain unknown. We identified three families with PLP1 deletions (including one family described elsewhere) that arose by three distinct processes. In one family, PLP1 deletion resulted from a maternal balanced submicroscopic insertional translocation of the entire PLP1 gene to the telomere of chromosome 19. PLP1 on the 19qtel is probably inactive by virtue of a position effect, because a healthy male sibling carries the same der(19) chromosome along with a normal X chromosome. Genomic mapping of the deleted segments revealed that the deletions are smaller than most of the PLP1 duplications and involve only two other genes. We hypothesize that the deletion is infrequent, because only the smaller deletions can avoid causing either infertility or lethality. Analyses of the DNA sequence flanking the deletion breakpoints revealed Alu-Alu recombination in the family with translocation. In the other two families, no homologous sequence flanking the breakpoints was found, but the distal breakpoints were embedded in novel low-copy repeats, suggesting the potential involvement of genome architecture in stimulating these rearrangements. In one family, junction sequences revealed a complex recombination event. Our data suggest that PLP1 deletions are likely caused by nonhomologous end joining.

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

4.7
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