doi: 10.1101/gr.185041.114. Epub 2015 Apr 16.
Characteristics of de novo structural changes in the human genome
Wigard P Kloosterman 1, Laurent C Francioli 1, Fereydoun Hormozdiari 2, Tobias Marschall 3, Jayne Y Hehir-Kwa 4, Abdel Abdellaoui 5, Eric-Wubbo Lameijer 6, Matthijs H Moed 6, Vyacheslav Koval 7, Ivo Renkens 1, Markus J van Roosmalen 1, Pascal Arp 7, Lennart C Karssen 8, Bradley P Coe 2, Robert E Handsaker 9, Eka D Suchiman 6, Edwin Cuppen 1, Djie Tjwan Thung 4, Mitch McVey 10, Michael C Wendl 11; Genome of Netherlands Consortium; André Uitterlinden 12, Cornelia M van Duijn 8, Morris A Swertz 13, Cisca Wijmenga 13, GertJan B van Ommen 14, P Eline Slagboom 6, Dorret I Boomsma 5, Alexander Schönhuth 3, Evan E Eichler 2, Paul I W de Bakker 15, Kai Ye 16, Victor Guryev 17
Collaborators, Affiliations
- PMID:25883321
- PMCID: PMC4448676
- DOI: 10.1101/gr.185041.114
Item in Clipboard
Characteristics of de novo structural changes in the human genome
Wigard P Kloosterman et al. Genome Res.2015 Jun.
Display options
Format
Display options
Format
Abstract
Small insertions and deletions (indels) and large structural variations (SVs) are major contributors to human genetic diversity and disease. However, mutation rates and characteristics of de novo indels and SVs in the general population have remained largely unexplored. We report 332 validated de novo structural changes identified in whole genomes of 250 families, including complex indels, retrotransposon insertions, and interchromosomal events. These data indicate a mutation rate of 2.94 indels (1-20 bp) and 0.16 SVs (>20 bp) per generation. De novo structural changes affect on average 4.1 kbp of genomic sequence and 29 coding bases per generation, which is 91 and 52 times more nucleotides than de novo substitutions, respectively. This contrasts with the equal genomic footprint of inherited SVs and substitutions. An excess of structural changes originated on paternal haplotypes. Additionally, we observed a nonuniform distribution of de novo SVs across offspring. These results reveal the importance of different mutational mechanisms to changes in human genome structure across generations.
© 2015 Kloosterman et al.; Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Figures
Overview of study design. A total of 250 parent-offspring families were sequenced at 14.5× coverage. De novo indel and structural variant (SV) calling was performed using 11 algorithms combining gapped reads, split reads, discordant read-pairs, and read depth approaches to cover the entire mutation size spectrum. All candidate indels (1169 in 99 children) and SVs (601 in 258 children) were subjected to experimental validation, leading to 291 validated de novo indels and 41 de novo SVs.
Frequency of de novo indels and SVs. (A) Size-frequency distribution of 332 validated de novo indels and SVs identified in this study. In addition, the frequency of de novo SNVs is shown (Francioli et al. 2014). The asterisk denotes a size bin containing one de novo tandem duplication and six de novo retrotransposon insertions. (B) Bar plot indicating the numbers of de novo indels and SVs on paternal and maternal haplotypes.
Overview of de novo and inherited indel classes and their formation mechanisms. (A) Proportion of de novo and inherited indels by class. Inherited indels exhibit a 2.3-fold enrichment in indels located in homopolymer runs (HR) and tandem repeats (TR) when compared to de novo indels, suggesting lower selective pressures in these regions. (B) Outline of a plausible seven-step process that could account for the formation of a complex de novo indel by SD-MMEJ.
Mechanisms contributing to the formation of de novo SVs. (A) Overview of four SV formation mechanisms, including examples and observed counts for each of these. (L) Left flank, (R) right flank, (J) junction. (B) Schematic structure of a complex de novo interchromosomal SV involving an insertion of DNA from Chromosomes 3 and 19 into Chromosome 4. (TSD) Target site duplication.
Effect of de novo SVs on protein-coding genes. (A) Deletion of six exons ofPTPRM, resulting in an in-frame shortened gene. (B) Deletion of one exon ofLYN, causing an out-of-frame effect at the transcript level. (C) Deletion of eight exons ofUBR5, causing an out-of-frame effect at the transcript level. (D) Duplication of one exon ofBANK1, possibly resulting in a premature stop. (E) Duplication of the entirePROC1 gene. (F) Duplication of three entire genes (GCNT3,GTF2A2,BNIP2). Duplications are shown in green and deletions in red. (A) Ancestral allele, (D) derived allele.
Functional impact of de novo indels and SVs. (A) Average number of genomic bases affected by de novo SNVs, indels, and SVs per child. (B) Average number of coding bases affected by de novo SNVs, indels, and SVs per child. (C) Average number of genes affected by de novo SNVs, indels, and SVs per child. The relative frequencies of the effects of the variations on the gene are indicated. (D) Comparison of the footprint of de novo (blue bars) and inherited (brown bars) large SVs (>20 bp) relative to the footprint of SNVs. The footprint was computed genome-wide, in protein-coding regions and genomic regions marked by H3K4me1, H3K4me3, and H3K27ac based on data from the ENCODE Project (The ENCODE Project Consortium 2007). They-axis shows the ratio of the average number of affected bases per offspring relative to SNVs.
Similar articles
- Haplotype-resolved and integrated genome analysis of the cancer cell line HepG2.Zhou B, Ho SS, Greer SU, Spies N, Bell JM, Zhang X, Zhu X, Arthur JG, Byeon S, Pattni R, Saha I, Huang Y, Song G, Perrin D, Wong WH, Ji HP, Abyzov A, Urban AE.Zhou B, et al.Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 May 7;47(8):3846-3861. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz169.Nucleic Acids Res. 2019.PMID:30864654Free PMC article.
- Comprehensive de novo mutation discovery with HiFi long-read sequencing.Kucuk E, van der Sanden BPGH, O'Gorman L, Kwint M, Derks R, Wenger AM, Lambert C, Chakraborty S, Baybayan P, Rowell WJ, Brunner HG, Vissers LELM, Hoischen A, Gilissen C.Kucuk E, et al.Genome Med. 2023 May 8;15(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s13073-023-01183-6.Genome Med. 2023.PMID:37158973Free PMC article.
- Frequency and Complexity of De Novo Structural Mutation in Autism.Brandler WM, Antaki D, Gujral M, Noor A, Rosanio G, Chapman TR, Barrera DJ, Lin GN, Malhotra D, Watts AC, Wong LC, Estabillo JA, Gadomski TE, Hong O, Fajardo KV, Bhandari A, Owen R, Baughn M, Yuan J, Solomon T, Moyzis AG, Maile MS, Sanders SJ, Reiner GE, Vaux KK, Strom CM, Zhang K, Muotri AR, Akshoomoff N, Leal SM, Pierce K, Courchesne E, Iakoucheva LM, Corsello C, Sebat J.Brandler WM, et al.Am J Hum Genet. 2016 Apr 7;98(4):667-79. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.02.018. Epub 2016 Mar 24.Am J Hum Genet. 2016.PMID:27018473Free PMC article.
- Geographic distribution and adaptive significance of genomic structural variants: an anthropological genetics perspective.Eaaswarkhanth M, Pavlidis P, Gokcumen O.Eaaswarkhanth M, et al.Hum Biol. 2014 Fall;86(4):260-75. doi: 10.13110/humanbiology.86.4.0260.Hum Biol. 2014.PMID:25959693Review.
- The repeatability of genome-wide mutation rate and spectrum estimates.Behringer MG, Hall DW.Behringer MG, et al.Curr Genet. 2016 Aug;62(3):507-12. doi: 10.1007/s00294-016-0573-7. Epub 2016 Feb 26.Curr Genet. 2016.PMID:26919990Free PMC article.Review.
Cited by
- Characterization and distribution of de novo mutations in the zebra finch.Liang X, Yang S, Wang D, Knief U.Liang X, et al.Commun Biol. 2024 Oct 2;7(1):1243. doi: 10.1038/s42003-024-06945-5.Commun Biol. 2024.PMID:39358581Free PMC article.
- Population-Scale Sequencing Data Enable Precise Estimates of Y-STR Mutation Rates.Willems T, Gymrek M, Poznik GD, Tyler-Smith C; 1000 Genomes Project Chromosome Y Group; Erlich Y.Willems T, et al.Am J Hum Genet. 2016 May 5;98(5):919-933. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.04.001. Epub 2016 Apr 25.Am J Hum Genet. 2016.PMID:27126583Free PMC article.
- Post-implantation analysis of genomic variations in the progeny from developing fetus to birth.Zheng Y, Lin C, Wang WJ, Wang L, Qian Y, Mao L, Li B, Lou L, Mao Y, Li N, Zheng J, Jiang N, He C, Wang Q, Zhou Q, Chen F, Jin F.Zheng Y, et al.Hum Genomics. 2024 Jul 15;18(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s40246-024-00634-4.Hum Genomics. 2024.PMID:39010135Free PMC article.
- Individual Genetic Heterogeneity.Vihinen M.Vihinen M.Genes (Basel). 2022 Sep 10;13(9):1626. doi: 10.3390/genes13091626.Genes (Basel). 2022.PMID:36140794Free PMC article.Review.
- Comprehensive evaluation of structural variation detection algorithms for whole genome sequencing.Kosugi S, Momozawa Y, Liu X, Terao C, Kubo M, Kamatani Y.Kosugi S, et al.Genome Biol. 2019 Jun 3;20(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s13059-019-1720-5.Genome Biol. 2019.PMID:31159850Free PMC article.
References
- Batista DAS, Pai GS, Stetten G. 1994. Molecular analysis of a complex chromosomal rearrangement and a review of familial cases. Am J Med Genet 53: 255–263. - PubMed
- Belancio VP, Hedges DJ, Deininger P. 2008. Mammalian non-LTR retrotransposons: for better or worse, in sickness and in health. Genome Res 18: 343–358. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Related information
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources