Literature DB >> 28025331

Detailed analysis of inversions predicted between two human genomes: errors, real polymorphisms, and their origin and population distribution.

David Vicente-Salvador1, Marta Puig1, Magdalena Gayà-Vidal1, Sarai Pacheco1, Carla Giner-Delgado1,2, Isaac Noguera1, David Izquierdo1, Alexander Martínez-Fundichely1, Aurora Ruiz-Herrera1,3, Xavier Estivill4,5, Cristina Aguado1, José Ignacio Lucas-Lledó1,6, Mario Cáceres1,7.   

Abstract

The growing catalogue of structural variants in humans often overlooks inversions as one of the most difficult types of variation to study, even though they affect phenotypic traits in diverse organisms. Here, we have analysed in detail 90 inversions predicted from the comparison of two independently assembled human genomes: the reference genome (NCBI36/HG18) and HuRef. Surprisingly, we found that two thirds of these predictions (62) represent errors either in assembly comparison or in one of the assemblies, including 27 misassembled regions in HG18. Next, we validated 22 of the remaining 28 potential polymorphic inversions using different PCR techniques and characterized their breakpoints and ancestral state. In addition, we determined experimentally the derived allele frequency in Europeans for 17 inversions (DAF = 0.01-0.80), as well as the distribution in 14 worldwide populations for 12 of them based on the 1000 Genomes Project data. Among the validated inversions, nine have inverted repeats (IRs) at their breakpoints, and two show nucleotide variation patterns consistent with a recurrent origin. Conversely, inversions without IRs have a unique origin and almost all of them show deletions or insertions at the breakpoints in the derived allele mediated by microhomology sequences, which highlights the importance of mechanisms like FoSTeS/MMBIR in the generation of complex rearrangements in the human genome. Finally, we found several inversions located within genes and at least one candidate to be positively selected in Africa. Thus, our study emphasizes the importance of careful analysis and validation of large-scale genomic predictions to extract reliable biological conclusions.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28025331     DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddw415

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Mol Genet        ISSN: 0964-6906            Impact factor:   6.150


  7 in total

1.  Recurrent inversion polymorphisms in humans associate with genetic instability and genomic disorders.

Authors:  David Porubsky; Wolfram Höps; Hufsah Ashraf; PingHsun Hsieh; Bernardo Rodriguez-Martin; Feyza Yilmaz; Jana Ebler; Pille Hallast; Flavia Angela Maria Maggiolini; William T Harvey; Barbara Henning; Peter A Audano; David S Gordon; Peter Ebert; Patrick Hasenfeld; Eva Benito; Qihui Zhu; Charles Lee; Francesca Antonacci; Matthias Steinrücken; Christine R Beck; Ashley D Sanders; Tobias Marschall; Evan E Eichler; Jan O Korbel
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 66.850

2.  Determining the impact of uncharacterized inversions in the human genome by droplet digital PCR.

Authors:  Marta Puig; Jon Lerga-Jaso; Carla Giner-Delgado; Sarai Pacheco; David Izquierdo; Alejandra Delprat; Magdalena Gayà-Vidal; Jack F Regan; George Karlin-Neumann; Mario Cáceres
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 9.043

3.  Evolutionary and functional impact of common polymorphic inversions in the human genome.

Authors:  Carla Giner-Delgado; Sergi Villatoro; Jon Lerga-Jaso; Magdalena Gayà-Vidal; Meritxell Oliva; David Castellano; Lorena Pantano; Bárbara D Bitarello; David Izquierdo; Isaac Noguera; Iñigo Olalde; Alejandra Delprat; Antoine Blancher; Carles Lalueza-Fox; Tõnu Esko; Paul F O'Reilly; Aida M Andrés; Luca Ferretti; Marta Puig; Mario Cáceres
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 14.919

4.  Parental origin of deletions and duplications - about the necessity to check for cryptic inversions.

Authors:  Thomas Liehr; Isolde Schreyer; Alma Kuechler; Emmanouil Manolakos; Sylke Singer; Andreas Dufke; Kathleen Wilhelm; Tereza Jančušková; Radek Čmejla; Moneeb A K Othman; Ahmed H Al-Rikabi; Kristin Mrasek; Monika Ziegler; Stefanie Kankel; Katharina Kreskowski; Anja Weise
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 2.009

5.  Inversion variants in human and primate genomes.

Authors:  Claudia Rita Catacchio; Flavia Angela Maria Maggiolini; Pietro D'Addabbo; Miriana Bitonto; Oronzo Capozzi; Martina Lepore Signorile; Mattia Miroballo; Nicoletta Archidiacono; Evan E Eichler; Mario Ventura; Francesca Antonacci
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2018-05-18       Impact factor: 9.043

6.  Single-cell strand sequencing of a macaque genome reveals multiple nested inversions and breakpoint reuse during primate evolution.

Authors:  Flavia Angela Maria Maggiolini; Ashley D Sanders; Colin James Shew; Arvis Sulovari; Yafei Mao; Marta Puig; Claudia Rita Catacchio; Maria Dellino; Donato Palmisano; Ludovica Mercuri; Miriana Bitonto; David Porubský; Mario Cáceres; Evan E Eichler; Mario Ventura; Megan Y Dennis; Jan O Korbel; Francesca Antonacci
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 9.043

7.  Recurrent inversion toggling and great ape genome evolution.

Authors:  David Porubsky; Ashley D Sanders; Wolfram Höps; PingHsun Hsieh; Arvis Sulovari; Ruiyang Li; Ludovica Mercuri; Melanie Sorensen; Shwetha C Murali; David Gordon; Stuart Cantsilieris; Alex A Pollen; Mario Ventura; Francesca Antonacci; Tobias Marschall; Jan O Korbel; Evan E Eichler
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 38.330

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.