Cited by 91Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesGenome Rearrangement AlgorithmsChromosomal and Genetic Variations

Analysis of deletion breakpoints from 1,092 humans reveals details of mutation mechanisms

Open access
Abyzov, Alexej, Li, Shantao, Kim, Daniel Rhee, Mohiyuddin, Marghoob, Stütz, Adrian M., Parrish, Nicholas F., Mu, Xinmeng Jasmine, Clark, Wyatt +6 more·2015·Nature Communications

Abstract

Investigating genomic structural variants at basepair resolution is crucial for understanding their formation mechanisms. We identify and analyse 8,943 deletion breakpoints in 1,092 samples from the 1000 Genomes Project. We find breakpoints have more nearby SNPs and indels than the genomic average, likely a consequence of relaxed selection. By investigating the correlation of breakpoints with DNA methylation, Hi–C interactions, and histone marks and the substitution patterns of nucleotides near them, we find that breakpoints with the signature of non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR) are associated with open chromatin. We hypothesize that some NAHR deletions occur without DNA replication and cell division, in embryonic and germline cells. In contrast, breakpoints associated with non-homologous (NH) mechanisms often have sequence microinsertions, templated from later replicating genomic sites, spaced at two characteristic distances from the breakpoint. These microinsertions are consistent with template-switching events and suggest a particular spatiotemporal configuration for DNA during the events. Structural variation is a major source of complexity in the human genome. Here Abyzov et al.present the identification, classification and analysis of a large database of variants giving an insight into mechanisms generating them.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ncomms8256

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • TAD boundaries are significantly less likely (P < 0.02) to be affected by known deletion and duplication polymorphisms derived from genomes of healthy human populations.

    “Interestingly, TAD boundaries are significantly less likely (P < 0.02) to be affected by known deletion and duplication polymorphisms derived from genomes of healthy human populations25–27 (Extended Data Fig. 2d).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abyzov, A., Li, S., Kim, D. R., Mohiyuddin, M., Stütz, A. M., Parrish, N. F., Mu, X. J., Clark, W., Chen, K., Hurles, M., Korbel, J. O., Lam, H. Y. K., Lee, C., & Gerstein, M. B.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory (DE)
  • Kyoto University (JP)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
  • The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
  • Abyzov, Alexej
  • Gerstein, Mark B.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2015-06-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
7256-7256
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1595360086
Cited by
91
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 6
FWCI
7.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2015-09-08)
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • The Mouseion at the JAXlibrary (Jackson Laboratory) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U41HG007497)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA172652, P30CA016672, P30CA034196)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
Keywords
deletion breakpoints, structural variants, non-allelic homologous recombination, non-homologous end joining, template switching, DNA methylation, open chromatin, histone modifications, relaxed selection, 1000 Genomes Project, human genome
MeSH terms
Chromatin, DNA, DNA Replication, Humans, Mutation, Nucleotides, Genome, Human, Gene Deletion, Sequence Deletion, Chromosome Breakpoints, Homologous Recombination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review