4.5 Article

Unequal exchange at the Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A recombination hot-spot is not elevated above the genome average rate

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 1881-1889

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/9.12.1881

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R37GM36745] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01NS38181] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An increasing number of human diseases and syndromes are being found to result from microduplications or microdeletions arising from meiotic recombination between homologous repeats on the same chromosome. The first microduplication syndrome delineated, Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A (CMT1A), results from unequal crossing over between two >98% identical 24 kb repeats (CMT1A-REPs) on chromosome 17. In addition to its medical significance, the CMT1A region has features that make it a unique resource for detailed analysis of human unequal recombination, Previous studies of CMT1A patients showed that the majority of unequal crossovers occurred within a small region (<1 kb) of the REPs suggesting the presence of a recombination hot-spot. We directly measured the frequency of unequal recombination in the hot-spot region using sperm from four normal individuals, Surprisingly, unequal recombination between the REPs occurs at a rate no greater than the average rate for the male genome (similar to 1 cM/Mb) and is the same as that expected for equally aligned REPs. This conclusion extends to humans the findings in yeast that recombination between repeated sequences far apart on the same chromosome may occur at similar frequencies to allelic recombination. Finally, the CMT1A hot-spot stands in sharp contrast to the human MS32 minisatellite-associated hot-spot that exhibits highly enhanced recombination initiation in addition to positional specificity. One possibility is that the CMT1A hot-spot may consist of a region with genome average recombination potential embedded within a recombination cold-spot.

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