4.7 Article

A large AZFc deletion removes DAZ3/DAZ4 and nearby genes from men in Y haplogroup N

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 74, 期 1, 页码 180-187

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/381132

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deletion of the entire AZFc locus on the human Y chromosome leads to male infertility. The functional roles of the individual gene families mapped to AZFc are, however, still poorly understood, since the analysis of the region is complicated by its repeated structure. We have therefore used single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) across similar to 3 Mb of the AZFc sequence to identify 17 AZFc haplotypes and have examined them for deletion of individual AZFc gene copies. We found five individuals who lacked SNVs from a large segment of DNA containing the DAZ3/ DAZ4 and BPY2.2/BPY2.3 gene doublets in distal AZFc. Southern blot analyses showed that the lack of these SNVs was due to deletion of the underlying DNA segment. Typing 118 binary Y markers showed that all five individuals belonged to Y haplogroup N, and 15 of 15 independently ascertained men in haplogroup N carried a similar deletion. Haplogroup N is known to be common and widespread in Europe and Asia, and there is no indication of reduced fertility in men with this Y chromosome. We therefore conclude that a common variant of the human Y chromosome lacks the DAZ3/ DAZ4 and BPY2.2/BPY2.3 doublets in distal AZFc and thus that these genes cannot be required for male fertility; the gene content of the AZFc locus is likely to be genetically redundant. Furthermore, the observed deletions cannot be derived from the GenBank reference sequence by a single recombination event; an origin by homologous recombination from such a sequence organization must be preceded by an inversion event. These data confirm the expectation that the human Y chromosome sequence and gene complement may differ substantially between individuals and more variations are to be expected in different Y chromosomal haplogroups.

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