Complex reorganization and predominant non-homologous repair following chromosomal breakage in karyotypically balanced germline rearrangements and transgenic integration

Center for Human Genetic Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Nature Genetics (Impact Factor: 29.65). 03/2012; 44(4):390-7, S1. DOI: 10.1038/ng.2202
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We defined the genetic landscape of balanced chromosomal rearrangements at nucleotide resolution by sequencing 141 breakpoints from cytogenetically interpreted translocations and inversions. We confirm that the recently described phenomenon of 'chromothripsis' (massive chromosomal shattering and reorganization) is not unique to cancer cells but also occurs in the germline, where it can resolve to a relatively balanced state with frequent inversions. We detected a high incidence of complex rearrangements (19.2%) and substantially less reliance on microhomology (31%) than previously observed in benign copy-number variants (CNVs). We compared these results to experimentally generated DNA breakage-repair by sequencing seven transgenic animals, revealing extensive rearrangement of the transgene and host genome with similar complexity to human germline alterations. Inversion was the most common rearrangement, suggesting that a combined mechanism involving template switching and non-homologous repair mediates the formation of balanced complex rearrangements that are viable, stably replicated and transmitted unaltered to subsequent generations.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chromothripsis represents an extreme class of complex chromosome rearrangements (CCRs) with major effects on chromosomal architecture. Although recent studies have associated chromothripsis with congenital abnormalities, the incidence and pathogenic effects of this phenomenon require further investigation. Here, we analyzed the genomes of three families in which chromothripsis rearrangements were transmitted from a mother to her child. The chromothripsis in the mothers resulted in completely balanced rearrangements involving 8-23 breakpoint junctions across three to five chromosomes. Two mothers did not show any phenotypic abnormalities, although 3-13 protein-coding genes were affected by breakpoints. Unbalanced but stable transmission of a subset of the derivative chromosomes caused apparently de novo complex copy-number changes in two children. This resulted in gene-dosage changes, which are probably responsible for the severe congenital phenotypes of these two children. In contrast, the third child, who has a severe congenital disease, harbored all three chromothripsis chromosomes from his healthy mother, but one of the chromosomes acquired de novo rearrangements leading to copy-number changes. These results show that the human genome can tolerate extreme reshuffling of chromosomal architecture, including breakage of multiple protein-coding genes, without noticeable phenotypic effects. The presence of chromothripsis in healthy individuals affects reproduction and is expected to substantially increase the risk of miscarriages, abortions, and severe congenital disease. Copyright © 2015 The American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    The American Journal of Human Genetics 03/2015; 96(4). DOI:10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.02.005 · 10.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chromosomal aberrations include translocations, deletions, duplications, inversions, aneuploidies and complex rearrangements. They underlie genetic disease in roughly 15% of patients with multiple congenital abnormalities and/or mental retardation (MCA/MR). In genetic diagnostics, the pathogenicity of chromosomal aberrations in these patients is typically assessed based on criteria such as phenotypic similarity to other patients with the same or overlapping aberration, absence in healthy individuals, de novo occurrence, and protein coding gene content. However, a thorough understanding of the molecular mechanisms that lead to MCA/MR as a result of chromosome aberrations is often lacking. Chromosome aberrations can affect one or more genes in a complex manner, such as by changing the regulation of gene expression, by disrupting exons, and by creating fusion genes. The precise delineation of breakpoints by whole-genome sequencing enables the construction of local genomic architecture and facilitates the prediction of the molecular determinants of the patient's phenotype. Here, we review current methods for breakpoint identification and their impact on the interpretation of chromosome aberrations in patients with MCA/MR. In addition, we discuss opportunities to dissect disease mechanisms based on large-scale genomic technologies and studies in model organisms.
    Molecular Cytogenetics 12/2014; 7(1):100. DOI:10.1186/s13039-014-0100-9 · 2.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Deficiency in repair of damaged DNA leads to genomic instability and is closely associated with tumorigenesis. Most DNA double-strand-breaks (DSBs) are repaired by two major mechanisms, homologous-recombination (HR) and non-homologous-end-joining (NHEJ). Although Akt has been reported to suppress HR, its role in NHEJ remains elusive. Here, we report that Akt phosphorylates XLF at Thr181 to trigger its dissociation from the DNA ligase IV/XRCC4 complex, and promotes its interaction with 14-3-3β leading to XLF cytoplasmic retention, where cytosolic XLF is subsequently degraded by SCF(β-TRCP) in a CKI-dependent manner. Physiologically, upon DNA damage, XLF-T181E expressing cells display impaired NHEJ and elevated cell death. Whereas a cancer-patient-derived XLF-R178Q mutant, deficient in XLF-T181 phosphorylation, exhibits an elevated tolerance of DNA damage. Together, our results reveal a pivotal role for Akt in suppressing NHEJ and highlight the tight connection between aberrant Akt hyper-activation and deficiency in timely DSB repair, leading to genomic instability and tumorigenesis. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Molecular Cell 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.molcel.2015.01.005 · 14.46 Impact Factor