4.7 Article

Impact of replication timing on non-CpG and CpG substitution rates in mammalian genomes

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 447-457

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.098947.109

关键词

-

资金

  1. Region Ile-de-France [E539]
  2. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
  3. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [NT05-3_41825]
  4. Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer
  5. Ligue Contre le Cancer (Comite de Paris)
  6. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale (equipe labellisee)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neutral nucleotide substitutions occur at varying rates along genomes, and it remains a major issue to unravel the mechanisms that cause these variations and to analyze their evolutionary consequences. Here, we study the role of replication in the neutral substitution pattern. We obtained a high-resolution replication timing profile of the whole human genome by massively parallel sequencing of nascent BrdU-labeled replicating DNA. These data were compared to the neutral substitution rates along the human genome, obtained by aligning human and chimpanzee genomes using macaque and orangutan as outgroups. All substitution rates increase monotonously with replication timing even after controlling for local or regional nucleotide composition, crossover rate, distance to telomeres, and chromatin compaction. The increase in non-CpG substitution rates might result from several mechanisms including the increase in mutation-prone activities or the decrease in efficiency of DNA repair during the S phase. In contrast, the rate of C -> T transitions in CpG dinucleotides increases in later-replicating regions due to increasing DNA methylation level that reflects a negative correlation between timing and gene expression. Similar results are observed in the mouse, which indicates that replication timing is a main factor affecting nucleotide substitution dynamics at non-CpG sites and constitutes a major neutral process driving mammalian genome evolution.

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