4.6 Article

Non-recurrent 17p11.2 deletions are generated by homologous and non-homologous mechanisms

期刊

HUMAN GENETICS
卷 116, 期 1-2, 页码 1-7

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00439-004-1204-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [P01 HD39420, HD24064] Funding Source: Medline
  2. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [P30HD024064] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [P01HD039420] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several recurrent common chromosomal deletion and duplication breakpoints have been localized to large, highly homologous, low-copy repeats (LCRs). The mechanism responsible for these rearrangements, viz., non-allelic homologous recombination between LCR copies, has been well established. However, fewer studies have examined the mechanisms responsible for non-recurrent rearrangements with non-homologous breakpoint regions. Here, we have analyzed four uncommon deletions of 17p11.2, involving the Smith-Magenis syndrome region. Using somatic cell hybrid lines created from patient lymphoblasts, we have utilized a strategy based on the polymerase chain reaction to refine the deletion breakpoints and to obtain sequence data at the deletion junction. Our analyses have revealed that two of the four deletions are a product of Alu/Alu recombination, whereas the remaining two deletions result from a non-homologous end-joining mechanism. Of the breakpoints studied, three of eight are located in LCRs, and five of eight are within repetitive elements, including Alu and MER5B sequences. These findings suggest that higher-order genomic architecture, such as LCRs, and smaller repetitive sequences, such as Alu elements, can mediate chromosomal deletions via homologous and non-homologous mechanisms. These data further implicate homologous recombination as the predominant mechanism of deletion formation in this genomic interval.

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