BACKGROUND: Recent data from genome-wide chromosome conformation capture analysis indicate that the human genome is divided into conserved megabase-sized self-interacting regions called topological domains. These topological domains form the regulatory backbone of the genome and are separated by regulatory boundary elements or barriers. Copy-number variations can potentially alter the topological domain architecture by deleting or duplicating the barriers and thereby allowing enhancers from neighboring domains to ectopically activate genes causing misexpression and disease, a mutational mechanism that has recently been termed enhancer adoption. RESULTS: We use the Human Phenotype Ontology database to relate the phenotypes of 922 deletion cases recorded in the DECIPHER database to monogenic diseases associated with genes in or adjacent to the deletions. We identify combinations of tissue-specific enhancers and genes adjacent to the deletion and associated with phenotypes in the corresponding tissue, whereby the phenotype matched that observed in the deletion. We compare this computationally with a gene-dosage pathomechanism that attempts to explain the deletion phenotype based on haploinsufficiency of genes located within the deletions. Up to 11.8% of the deletions could be best explained by enhancer adoption or a combination of enhancer adoption and gene-dosage effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that enhancer adoption caused by deletions of regulatory boundaries may contribute to a substantial minority of copy-number variation phenotypes and should thus be taken into account in their medical interpretation.
BACKGROUND: Recent data from genome-wide chromosome conformation capture analysis indicate that the human genome is divided into conserved megabase-sized self-interacting regions called topological domains. These topological domains form the regulatory backbone of the genome and are separated by regulatory boundary elements or barriers. Copy-number variations can potentially alter the topological domain architecture by deleting or duplicating the barriers and thereby allowing enhancers from neighboring domains to ectopically activate genes causing misexpression and disease, a mutational mechanism that has recently been termed enhancer adoption. RESULTS: We use the Human Phenotype Ontology database to relate the phenotypes of 922 deletion cases recorded in the DECIPHER database to monogenic diseases associated with genes in or adjacent to the deletions. We identify combinations of tissue-specific enhancers and genes adjacent to the deletion and associated with phenotypes in the corresponding tissue, whereby the phenotype matched that observed in the deletion. We compare this computationally with a gene-dosage pathomechanism that attempts to explain the deletion phenotype based on haploinsufficiency of genes located within the deletions. Up to 11.8% of the deletions could be best explained by enhancer adoption or a combination of enhancer adoption and gene-dosage effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that enhancer adoption caused by deletions of regulatory boundaries may contribute to a substantial minority of copy-number variation phenotypes and should thus be taken into account in their medical interpretation.
Authors: Rafael A Irizarry; Daniel Warren; Forrest Spencer; Irene F Kim; Shyam Biswal; Bryan C Frank; Edward Gabrielson; Joe G N Garcia; Joel Geoghegan; Gregory Germino; Constance Griffin; Sara C Hilmer; Eric Hoffman; Anne E Jedlicka; Ernest Kawasaki; Francisco Martínez-Murillo; Laura Morsberger; Hannah Lee; David Petersen; John Quackenbush; Alan Scott; Michael Wilson; Yanqin Yang; Shui Qing Ye; Wayne Yu Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Gregory J Block; Divya Narayanan; Amanda M Amell; Lisa M Petek; Kathryn C Davidson; Thomas D Bird; Rabi Tawil; Randall T Moon; Daniel G Miller Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Jayne Y Hehir-Kwa; Nienke Wieskamp; Caleb Webber; Rolph Pfundt; Han G Brunner; Christian Gilissen; Bert B A de Vries; Chris P Ponting; Joris A Veltman Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2010-04-22 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Nayia Nicolaou; Kirsten Y Renkema; Ernie M H F Bongers; Rachel H Giles; Nine V A M Knoers Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 28.314
Authors: Cinthya J Zepeda-Mendoza; Jonas Ibn-Salem; Tammy Kammin; David J Harris; Debra Rita; Karen W Gripp; Jennifer J MacKenzie; Andrea Gropman; Brett Graham; Ranad Shaheen; Fowzan S Alkuraya; Campbell K Brasington; Edward J Spence; Diane Masser-Frye; Lynne M Bird; Erica Spiegel; Rebecca L Sparkes; Zehra Ordulu; Michael E Talkowski; Miguel A Andrade-Navarro; Peter N Robinson; Cynthia C Morton Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Damian Smedley; Max Schubach; Julius O B Jacobsen; Sebastian Köhler; Tomasz Zemojtel; Malte Spielmann; Marten Jäger; Harry Hochheiser; Nicole L Washington; Julie A McMurry; Melissa A Haendel; Christopher J Mungall; Suzanna E Lewis; Tudor Groza; Giorgio Valentini; Peter N Robinson Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 11.025