Cited by 610Chromosomal and Genetic VariationsGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsDNA Repair Mechanisms

Prdm9 Controls Activation of Mammalian Recombination Hotspots

Open access
Parvanov, Emil D., Petkov, Petko M., Paigen, Kenneth·2010·Science

Abstract

Homing in on Hotspots: The clustering of recombination in the genome, around locations known as hotspots, is associated with specific DNA motifs. Now, using a variety of techniques, three studies implicate a chromatin-modifying protein, the histone-methyltransferase PRDM9, as a major factor involved in human hotspots (see the Perspective by Cheung et al. ). Parvanov et al. (p. 835 , published online 31 December) mapped the locus in mice, and analyzed allelic variation in mice and humans, whereas Myers et al. (p. 876 , published online 31 December) used a comparative analysis between human and chimpanzees to show that the recombination process leads to a self-destructive drive in which the very motifs that recruit hotspots are eliminated from our genome. Baudat et al. (p. 836 , published online 31 December) took this analysis a step further to identify human allelic variants within Prdm9 that differed in the frequency at which they used hotspots. Furthermore, differential binding of this protein to different human alleles suggests that this protein interacts with specific DNA sequences. Thus, PDRM9 functions in the determination of recombination loci within the genome and may be a significant factor in the genomic differences between closely related species.

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 · 10.1126/science.1181495

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • Nearly all rhLOF genotypes were found within autozygous segments (94.9%), and the mean number of rhLOF per individual was proportional to autozygosity.

    “Nearly all rhLOF genotypes were found within autozygous segments (94.9%)(5), and the mean number of rhLOF per individual was proportional to autozygosity (fig. 1B).”
  • Autozygous segments were observed across all exomic sites with a density distribution not significantly different from random (Shapiro-Wilks P=0.112).

    “Autozygous segments were observed across all exomic sites with a density distribution not significantly different from random (5)(Shapiro-Wilks P=0.112).”
  • In 100,000 subjects with first-cousin related parents of the same genetic ancestry, at least one knockout is expected in about 9,000 of the approximately 20,000 human protein-coding genes.

    “On the basis of these observations we predict that in 100,000 subjects with first-cousin related parents of the same genetic ancestry we would expect at least one knockout in ~9,000 of the ~20,000 human protein-coding genes (fig. S3)(5).”
  • 107 rhLOF genes were common to all three datasets.

    “In total, 107 rhLOF genes were common to all three datasets (5)”
  • Exome sequencing of 3,222 British Pakistani-heritage adults with high parental relatedness identified 1,111 rare homozygous predicted loss-of-function genotypes in 781 genes.

    “We sequenced the exomes of 3,222 British Pakistani-heritage adults with high parental relatedness, discovering 1,111 rare-variant homozygous genotypes with predicted loss of gene function (knockouts) in 781 genes.”

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
Parvanov, E. D., Petkov, P. M., & Paigen, K.
Affiliations
Jackson Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
  • Petkov, Petko M.
  • Paigen, Kenneth
Venue
Science
Published
2010-02-12
Volume
327
Issue
5967
Pages
835-835
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W1970283686
Cited by
610
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 51
FWCI
68.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • The Mouseion at the JAXlibrary (Jackson Laboratory) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (083408)
  • U.S. Public Health Service (076468, 078452)
  • National Cancer Institute (#CA34196, P30CA034196)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P50GM076468, GM 078643, R01GM083408, R01GM078452, R01GM078643)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
Keywords
PRDM9, meiotic recombination, recombination hotspots, histone methyltransferase, chromatin modification, DNA sequence motifs, allelic variation, human-chimpanzee comparison, protein-DNA interactions
MeSH terms
Alleles, Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Chromosome Mapping, Female, Humans, Male, Meiosis, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Molecular Sequence Data, Histone-Lysine N-Methyltransferase, Recombination, Genetic, Testis, Zinc Fingers, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Mice

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