Transposable elements are often referred to as ‘jumping genes’ because they can move between different locations within a genome. These sequences of DNA are found in many organisms and can make up a significant proportion of the genetic material: almost 50% of the DNA in the case of the human genome.

Transposable elements are grouped by how they move to new locations in a genome. Some move by a cut-and-paste mechanism—whereby the transposable element DNA is removed from one location and inserted back at a new genomic location. Others, termed retrotransposons, move by a copy-and-paste mechanism: the DNA sequence is transcribed into an RNA intermediate, and then copied back into DNA before being inserted into a new location. Retrotransposons can accumulate to great numbers in genomes: and one retrotransposon, called LINE-1, is present at an estimated 500,000 copies in the human genome.

Although most copies of LINE-1 are inactive, the average human genome contains about 80–100 that are predicted to be able to ‘jump’ to new locations. Given that these retrotransposons could insert into, and disrupt, vital genes, it follows that our cells would have evolved ways to limit their movement. An enzyme named APOBEC3A is known to limit the movement of LINE-1 retrotransposons in cells. APOBEC3A can alter the letters, or bases, that make up the genetic code. This enzyme acts on single-strand DNA to change ‘C’ bases to ‘U’ bases, which could explain how APOBEC3A combats LINE-1. However, no evidence for such mutation of LINE-1 sequences by APOBEC3A had been found to date.

Now, Richardson et al. recreate the copying of LINE-1 RNA back into DNA in a test tube—and reveal that APOBEC3A can mutate single-strand LINE-1 DNA. Critically, as long as the RNA intermediate and DNA copy remain together, the LINE-1 DNA is protected. However, when LINE-1 inserts into a new location the temporarily exposed single strand of LINE-1 DNA becomes susceptible to mutation by APOBEC3A. Human cells can detect and destroy ‘U’ bases in DNA—and only by inhibiting this ability were Richardson et al. able to observe APOBEC3A mutations in new LINE-1 copies within the genomes of living cells.

Richardson et al. speculate that the activity of APOBEC3 enzymes must strike a balance between limiting the spread of retrotransposons and minimizing the mutation of the cell's own DNA. Future work could address important questions, such as: do APOBEC enzymes affect the ‘jumping’ of LINE-1 retrotransposons in human reproductive cells and the early embryo, where new LINE-1 insertions could be passed on to subsequent generations? Also, does a loss of APOBEC3 activity lead to new LINE-1 insertions in cancerous cells? And does this effect how tumors form and/or progress? Since APOBEC3 enzymes can cause mutations in cancers, they have been proposed as new targets for anti-cancer drugs—therefore, it is crucial to uncover any harmful effects of inhibiting APOBEC3 enzymes that might limit the effectiveness of such treatments.

Long INterspersed Element-1 (LINE-1 or L1) derived sequences comprise roughly 17% of human genomic DNA (Lander et al., 2001). The vast majority of L1 sequences are 5′ truncated, internally rearranged, or are inactivated by mutations and are unable to mobilize (i.e., retrotranspose) to new genomic locations (Grimaldi et al., 1984; Lander et al., 2001). However, it is estimated that the average human genome contains 80–100 retrotransposition-competent (i.e., active) L1s (Sassaman et al., 1997; Brouha et al., 2003). Active human L1s are approximately 6 kb in length and contain a 5′ untranslated region (UTR), two open reading frames (ORF1 and ORF2), and a 3′ UTR that terminates in a poly (A) tail (Scott et al., 1987; Dombroski et al., 1991). ORF1 encodes an ∼40 kDa protein (ORF1p) that binds L1 RNA as a trimer (Holmes et al., 1992; Hohjoh and Singer, 1996; Martin et al., 2003; Khazina and Weichenrieder, 2009). ORF1p also has nucleic acid chaperone activity (Martin and Bushman, 2001; Khazina and Weichenrieder, 2009). ORF2 encodes an ∼150 kDa protein (ORF2p) (Ergun et al., 2004; Doucet et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2013b) with DNA endonuclease (Feng et al., 1996) and reverse transcriptase (Mathias et al., 1991) activities. The development of a cultured cell assay definitively demonstrated that both ORF1p and ORF2p are required for efficient L1 retrotransposition (Moran et al., 1996). Subsequent biochemical studies revealed that L1 retrotransposition occurs by a mechanism termed target-site primed reverse transcription (TPRT) (Luan et al., 1993; Feng et al., 1996; Cost et al., 2002; Kulpa and Moran, 2006).

Ongoing L1 retrotransposition events contribute to intra- and inter-individual genetic variation and, on occasion, can disrupt gene function, leading to sporadic genetic diseases (Beck et al., 2011; Hancks and Kazazian, 2012). Given the mutagenic potential of active L1s, it is not surprising that host cells have evolved multiple mechanisms to restrict L1 retrotransposition (Levin and Moran, 2011). Previous studies revealed that over-expression of the wild-type (WT) APOBEC3A cytidine deaminase protein (A3A), but not deaminase-defective A3A mutants, could potently inhibit L1 retrotransposition in cultured human cells (Chen et al., 2006; Muckenfuss et al., 2006; Bogerd et al., 2006b; Kinomoto et al., 2007; Niewiadomska et al., 2007). However, deamination events were not detected in L1 retrotransposition events generated in the presence of WT A3A (Chen et al., 2006; Muckenfuss et al., 2006; Bogerd et al., 2006b; Kinomoto et al., 2007). Thus, the molecular mechanism by which WT A3A inhibits L1 retrotransposition has remained a mystery.

Here, we employ an in vitro assay (L1 Element Amplification Protocol or LEAP) that recapitulates the first strand cDNA synthesis step of the L1 integration to elucidate a mechanism for A3A-mediated inhibition of L1 retrotransposition. In LEAP reactions that include RNase H, an enzyme that specifically degrades the RNA strand of an RNA/DNA heteroduplex, we report that single-strand L1 cDNAs are rendered susceptible to A3A-mediated deamination. These data suggest that newly synthesized L1 cDNAs remain annealed to their mRNA templates after reverse transcription, protecting the L1 cDNA from deamination by A3A. We further demonstrate that engineered L1 retrotransposition events derived from cultured human cells that co-express A3A and the uracil DNA glycosylase inhibitor protein (UGI) contain strand-specific, A3A-mediated C-to-U deamination events. Together, these data indicate that A3A can inhibit L1 retrotransposition by deaminating transiently exposed single-strand DNA that arises during the process of L1 integration. Moreover, our results provide direct evidence that A3A can deaminate single-strand genomic DNA in human cells.

We used a cultured cell assay (Moran et al., 1996; Wei et al., 2000) to determine the extent to which A3A inhibits retrotransposition of LINE elements that differ significantly in their nucleotide sequence and structure (Figure 1A). The retrotransposition indicator cassette mneoI (Freeman et al., 1994; Moran et al., 1996) was used to tag the 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs) of a human L1 (pJM101/L1.3) (Sassaman et al., 1997), a natural mouse L1 element (TGF21) (Goodier et al., 2001), a synthetic mouse L1 element (L1SM) (Han and Boeke, 2004), and a LINE-2 element from zebrafish (ZfL2-2) (Sugano et al., 2006; Figure 1A). The mneoI cassette consists of an antisense neomycin phosphotransferase gene (NEO) disrupted by an intron, which is in the same transcriptional orientation as the LINE element (Figure 1A). This arrangement ensures that G418-resistant foci arise only if the tagged LINE element undergoes successful retrotransposition (Freeman et al., 1994; Moran et al., 1996). HeLa cells do not express endogenous A3A (Wissing et al., 2011), and therefore provide a system to measure directly the effects of ectopically expressed A3A on L1 retrotransposition.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

We co-transfected HeLa cells with retroelement expression constructs and plasmids encoding WT A3A or a deaminase-deficient mutant, A3A-C106S (Chen et al., 2006). As a control we included β-arrestin, which does not significantly affect L1 retrotransposition (Bogerd et al., 2006b). A3A expression inhibited human L1.3 retrotransposition to ∼28% of control levels (Figure 1B), in agreement with previous reports (Chen et al., 2006; Muckenfuss et al., 2006; Bogerd et al., 2006b). In comparison to control levels, A3A also inhibited retrotransposition of TGF21 (to ∼20%), ZfL2-2 (to ∼17%), and L1SM (to ∼61%) (Figure 1B). The milder inhibition of A3A on L1SM retrotransposition may be due to the GC-rich nature of the L1SM transcript, the elevated steady state levels of L1SM mRNA, and/or an increased number of L1SM retrotransposition events per cell (Han and Boeke, 2004). Additional controls revealed that the reduction of G418-resistant HeLa cell foci observed in the presence of A3A reflects specific inhibition of L1 retrotransposition, rather than non-specific cytotoxicity (Figure 1—figure supplement 1A–C; see Methods and Materials). A deaminase-deficient mutant, A3A-C106S, did not significantly restrict retroelement mobility (Figure 1B), in agreement with previous studies (Chen et al., 2006; Muckenfuss et al., 2006; Bogerd et al., 2006b). Moreover, A3A inhibited L1.3 retrotransposition when it was expressed from its native 5′UTR on a non-episomal vector (Figure 1—figure supplement 1D: pKS101/L1.3/sv+). Together, these experiments show that A3A inhibits retrotransposition of diverse LINE elements in cultured cells.

Since LINE element retrotransposition proceeds by target-site primed reverse transcription (TPRT), which requires element-encoded endonuclease (EN) and reverse transcriptase (RT) activities (Luan et al., 1993; Feng et al., 1996), we investigated whether A3A specifically interferes with L1 EN or L1 RT activity. In addition to canonical TPRT, human L1s can mobilize by an alternative, endonuclease-independent retrotransposition mechanism (ENi) in cells that lack p53 activity and are defective for components of the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) DNA repair machinery (Morrish et al., 2002, 2007; Coufal et al., 2011). We reasoned that if A3A specifically inhibits L1 EN activity, ENi L1 retrotransposition events should escape A3A inhibition. To test this hypothesis, we co-transfected a human L1 (either WT pAD2TE1 or EN-deficient pAD136 [Doucet et al., 2010]) and a WT A3A expression construct into Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell lines that are NHEJ-proficient (4364a) or NHEJ-deficient (XR-1) (Morrish et al., 2002, 2007). A3A expression inhibited WT L1 retrotransposition in both cell lines, and also inhibited ENi retrotransposition in XR-1 cells (Figure 1C). These data demonstrate A3A can inhibit L1 retrotransposition in a hamster cell line and that the A3A-mediated reduction of L1 retrotransposition is not due to inhibition of L1 EN activity.

To test whether A3A inhibits L1 RT activity, we performed in vitro LEAP assays (Kulpa and Moran, 2006) with ribonucleoprotein particle (RNP) preparations derived from cells transfected with an engineered L1 construct (Figure 2A). We purified recombinant WT A3A (rA3A) (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A,B) and deaminase-deficient (rA3A_C106S) (data not shown) proteins from Escherichia coli. As expected rA3A had cytidine deaminase activity on single-strand (Figure 2B), but not on double-stranded DNA (Figure 2—figure supplement 1C), whereas rA3A_C106S lacked appreciable deaminase activity (Figure 2B). Incorporating increasing amounts of rA3A or rA3A_C106S into LEAP or Moloney murine leukemia virus (MMLV) RT reactions did not significantly affect the synthesis of L1 or MMLV-derived cDNA products (Figure 2C, Figure 2—figure supplement 1D). Thus, A3A does not specifically block L1 RT activity.

Figure 2 with 4 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

To determine whether A3A can deaminate L1 cDNAs in vitro, we sequenced 100 L1 cDNA products from LEAP reactions conducted in the absence of A3A (no rA3A) or in the presence of rA3A or deaminase-deficient rA3A_C106S. We did not detect significant numbers of C-to-U deamination events in L1 cDNAs derived from LEAP reactions in the absence of rA3A or the presence of rA3A_C106S (Figure 2D). In contrast, LEAP products generated in the presence of rA3A contained abundant C-to-U editing that was most frequent at the single 5′-TCA-3′ consensus A3A deamination site (Chen et al., 2006) present in the single-strand oligonucleotide adapter used to prime L1 RT reactions (Figure 2D, Figure 2—figure supplement 2, top chart in the middle panel, 91 of 100 (91%) total 5′-TCA-3′ sites within the 100 single-strand oligonucleotide adapters showed evidence of deamination). However, far less deamination was detected within L1 cDNA LEAP products at the six internal 5′-TCA-3′ sites (Figure 2D, Figure 2—figure supplement 2, top chart in the middle panel, only 25 of 600 (4.2%) 5′-TCA-3′ sites within the 100 L1 cDNA products showed evidence of deamination).

The non-uniform pattern of deamination events observed above suggested that the L1 cDNA may remain annealed to L1 mRNA, generating L1 mRNA/cDNA heteroduplexes after reverse transcription, thereby leaving only the single-strand oligonucleotide LEAP adapter susceptible to deamination. Thus, we tested whether inclusion of RNase H into LEAP reactions renders L1 cDNA susceptible to deamination. In the presence of rA3A and RNase H, 228 of 600 (38%) 5′-TCA-3′ substrates within the L1 cDNAs showed evidence of deamination (Figure 2D, Figure 2—figure supplement 2, bottom chart in the middle panel). Importantly, sequencing revealed differing poly (A) tail lengths and unique deamination patterns in each of the 100 LEAP products, indicating that they were derived from independent L1 cDNAs (Figure 2—figure supplement 3, panel e; Figure 2—figure supplement 4). In contrast, in the presence of rA3A_C106S and RNase H, only 6.7% of 5′-TCA-3′ substrates within 100 L1 cDNAs demonstrated evidence of deamination (Figure 2D, Figure 2—figure supplement 2, bottom chart in the right panel). Similarly, in reactions conducted with RNase H alone, 4.2% of 5′-TCA-3′ substrates within 100 L1 cDNAs contained signatures of deamination (Figure 2D, Figure 2—figure supplement 2, bottom chart in the left panel). The slightly increased number of deamination events observed with RNase H alone may reflect endogenous cytidine deaminase activity present in HeLa RNP preparations. APOBEC3B (A3B) might be responsible for these events as it is expressed in HeLa cells and can suppress L1 retrotransposition (Chen et al., 2006; Bogerd et al., 2006b; Wissing et al., 2011). These results suggest that the L1 cDNA, when annealed to the L1 mRNA in an mRNA/cDNA heteroduplex, is protected from mutation by cellular deaminases.

Our results demonstrated that rA3A could deaminate single-strand L1 cDNAs in vitro. We therefore hypothesized that A3A may deaminate transiently exposed single-strand DNA intermediates that arise during L1 TPRT in cultured cells. Uridine residues are efficiently removed from DNA through combined actions of uracil DNA glycosylase (UNG) and apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease (APE) (Krokan et al., 2002). In principle, these activities could repair and/or degrade deaminated single-strand DNAs that arise during TPRT. Degradation of deaminated retrotransposition intermediates would reduce L1 retrotransposition levels in cultured cell assays and could, in principle, eliminate evidence of A3A-mediated deamination events in the resultant retrotransposed L1 sequences. Such a scenario could explain why previous studies failed to detect A3A-mediated deamination events in engineered L1 retrotransposition events (Chen et al., 2006; Muckenfuss et al., 2006; Bogerd et al., 2006b; Kinomoto et al., 2007).

To test whether UNG contributed to the inhibition of L1 retrotransposition downstream of A3A activity, we conducted L1 retrotransposition assays in the presence of codon optimized bacteriophage-derived uracil DNA glycosylase inhibitor (UGI) that selectively inhibits UNG activity (Kaiser and Emerman, 2006; Figure 3A). Remarkably, UGI expression from a transfected plasmid (pLGCX_UGI) alleviated A3A-mediated L1 inhibition by ∼twofold (Figure 3B: from ∼25% to ∼57% of control levels). In contrast, UGI expression had little effect on L1 retrotransposition activity in assays conducted in the presence of A3A deaminase mutant (A3A-C106S) or β-arrestin control (Figure 3B). Similarly, UGI expression did not affect the ability of deaminase-deficient A3B mutants (Bogerd et al., 2006b) to inhibit L1 retrotransposition (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A: see A3B_N-term and A3B_CS data). Thus, UGI expression specifically alleviates a deaminase-dependent mechanism of L1 retrotransposition inhibition.

Figure 3 with 5 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

We hypothesized that UGI expression should allow the detection of A3A-mediated C-to-U deamination events in retrotransposed L1s. Thus, we co-transfected HeLa cells with A3A, UGI, and pJM140/L1.3/Δ2/k7, an engineered L1 vector that contains both an mneoI retrotransposition cassette and a ColE1 bacterial origin of replication (Gilbert et al., 2002, 2005) (Figure 3A). This modified cassette facilitates recovery of engineered L1 retrotransposition events and their associated flanking genomic DNA sequences as autonomously replicating, kanamycin-resistant plasmids in bacteria (Gilbert et al., 2002, 2005). Characterization of 12 independent retrotransposition events revealed four G-to-A mutations on the L1 coding strand, which correspond to C-to-U deamination events on the (−) strand L1 cDNA (Figure 3C). Notably, the 5′ target-site duplication (TSD) of one insertion contained a C-to-T change within a 5′-TCA-3′ consensus A3A deamination site in flanking genomic DNA. This putative A3A-mediated deamination event led to an inexact TSD flanking a newly retrotransposed L1 (Figure 3D).

To gain further evidence for A3A-mediated deamination of L1 retrotransposition events, we employed a stable UGI-expressing U2OS cell line (Landry et al., 2011) (Figure 3A: right side). This strategy ensured that UNG activity is inhibited before co-transfection of L1 and A3A expression plasmids (Landry et al., 2011). In control U2OS cells, transfection of a low amount of A3A plasmid (25 ng) inhibited retrotransposition to ∼28.0% of control levels without substantial cytotoxicity (Figure 3E, Figure 3—figure supplement 1B). By comparison, in U2OS_UGI-expressing cells, A3A only slightly inhibited L1 retrotransposition (Figure 3E: to ∼83% of control levels; Figure 3—figure supplement 1C). Thus, consistent with experiments performed in HeLa cells, stable UGI expression relieves A3A-mediated inhibition of L1 retrotransposition in U2OS cells.

We next analyzed sequences of engineered L1 retrotransposition events. We used pJM140/L1.3/Δ2/k7 to generate a panel of clonal G418-resistant U2OS_UGI cell lines, isolated the resultant L1 retrotransposition events, and examined them for evidence of A3A-mediated deamination. Characterization of 24 control L1 retrotransposition events did not reveal any G-to-A mutations (Figure 3F, top panel, Figure 3—figure supplement 2). Similarly, characterization of 30 L1 retrotransposition events generated in the presence of A3A-C106S revealed only five G-to-A mutations (Figure 3F, middle panel, Figure 3—figure supplement 3). In contrast, characterization of 33 L1 retrotransposition events generated in the presence of A3A revealed 39 G-to-A mutations (Figure 3F, bottom panel, Figure 3—figure supplement 4). The A3A-induced mutations occurred in a strand-specific manner (i.e., we only detected one C-to-T mutation on the L1 coding strand), and far outnumbered any other nucleotide changes in retrotransposed products. Notably, one mutation (pJM140/L1.3/Δ2/k7: G-5390-A) introduced a premature termination codon into L1 ORF2, which would create a 145 amino acid truncation in ORF2p. This mutation reduced L1 retrotransposition efficiency to ∼10% of control levels (Figure 3—figure supplement 5). Thus, coupled with identification of a deamination-induced mutation in genomic DNA flanking a newly retrotransposed L1 (Figure 3D), these data suggest that the detected A3A-mediated deamination events occur on single-strand DNA during TPRT rather than on L1 mRNA or single-strand episomal plasmid DNA prior to L1 retrotransposition.

We propose a straightforward model for how A3A inhibits L1 retrotransposition (Figure 4). In the presence of cellular RNase H, the (−) strand L1 cDNA becomes vulnerable to A3A deamination (Figure 4A). Normally, these events would be repaired by combined actions of UNG and APE, which we speculate could lead to the integration of a 5′ truncated L1 cDNA that lacks evidence of deamination. However, in the presence of ectopically expressed UGI, A3A-mediated deamination events become unveiled in the retrotransposed L1s (Figure 3D,F, 4A). We further propose that A3A can act on transiently exposed single-strand genomic DNA flanking L1 integration sites (Figure 4B,C). The deamination of 5′-flanking top-strand genomic DNA could account for generation of inexact target-site duplications (Figure 3D). Interestingly, the structure of the proposed L1 integration intermediate resembles R-loop intermediates, formed during immunoglobulin class switching, that are targeted by an A3A related enzyme, activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID) (Goodman et al., 2007). The deamination of 3′ flanking bottom-strand genomic DNA, in principle, could also lead to the generation of inexact TSDs (Figure 4C). While we did not observe these events in cultured cells, we did observe deamination events in the single-strand DNA oligonucleotide primer used to simulate 3′ flanking genomic DNA in LEAP assays (Figure 2D). It is intriguing to speculate that, in the absence of UGI, A3A-mediated editing within 3′ flanking bottom-strand genomic DNA could ultimately lead to loss of the L1 cDNA. Indeed, the ERCC1/XPF endonuclease has been implicated in limiting L1 retrotransposition by cleaving the transiently exposed single-strand 3’ flanking bottom-strand genomic DNA during TPRT (Gasior et al., 2008). The DNA lesion resulting from cleavage of this region could then be repaired using the top-strand genomic DNA as a template, leaving no detectable evidence of thwarted L1 retrotransposition events.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

The over-expression of A3A does not abolish L1 retrotransposition completely, but reduces it to ∼30% of control levels. Moreover, some L1 retrotransposition events generated in the presence of A3A and UGI lacked evidence of deamination. Why and how some L1 retrotransposition events evade A3A-mediated deamination requires further study. However, it is possible that ectopic A3A expression is too low to efficiently target L1 TPRT intermediates in some cells or that L1 second-strand cDNA synthesis occasionally is completed before A3A can gain access to TPRT intermediates to deaminate single-strand L1 cDNAs.

In sum, we conclude that deamination of transiently exposed single-strand DNA arising during L1 TPRT is responsible, at least in part, for A3A-mediated inhibition of L1 retrotransposition. It is noteworthy that the mobility of an evolutionarily related bacterial group II intron requires RNase H1 activity (Smith et al., 2005). Similarly, the related Bombyx mori R2 retrotransposon RT can displace RNA from RNA/DNA hybrids during second-strand cDNA synthesis in vitro (Kurzynska-Kokorniak et al., 2007). We hypothesize that annealed L1 mRNA protects the first-strand L1 cDNA, and that cellular RNase H renders these L1 cDNAs vulnerable to A3A deamination during TPRT.

Mechanistic insights gained from studying deaminase-dependent A3A-mediated L1 inhibition could be applicable to retroelement inhibition by other A3 proteins. A3A expression is restricted to peripheral blood lymphocytes (Chen et al., 2006; Refsland et al., 2010; Stenglein et al., 2010; Thielen et al., 2010; Berger et al., 2011; Koning et al., 2011), suggesting that it does not play a physiological role in restricting heritable L1 retrotransposition events. By comparison, A3B, which like A3A localizes to the nucleus, is expressed in human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) (Bogerd et al., 2006b) and can restrict engineered L1 retrotransposition in hESCs (Wissing et al., 2011). Since heritable L1-mediated retrotransposition events can occur in the early human embryo (de Boer et al., 2014; van den Hurk et al., 2007), A3B may restrict heritable L1 retrotransposition events. Consistent with this notion, recent reports suggest that A3B is expressed at higher levels in human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) when compared to non-human primate iPSCs, and that A3B expression may, in part, account for the lower number of recent L1 insertions in the human genome compared to the chimpanzee genome (Marchetto et al., 2013). Intriguingly, an A3B deletion allele also is present at a high allele frequency in some human geographic populations (Kidd et al., 2007); thus, it would be interesting to determine whether the loss of A3B correlates with increased frequency of de novo L1 insertions.

APOBEC3 activity has been implicated in genome hyper-mutation in numerous cancers (Roberts et al., 2013; Burns et al., 2013a, 2013b). It is interesting to speculate that APOBEC3 expression in cancers may restrict potentially deleterious L1 retrotransposition events, yet may exact a mutagenic cost by contributing to genome hyper-mutation (Narvaiza et al., 2012). Indeed, our results suggest that in addition to TPRT, A3A may deaminate any transiently exposed single-strand region of genomic DNA (e.g., those arising at replication forks or during transcription). This hypothesis is consistent with recent reports indicating that resected single-strand DNA, around DNA breaks, is susceptible to hyper-mutation by APOBEC deamination (Nik-Zainal et al., 2012; Roberts et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2013a).

1. 1. Beck CR
   2. Garcia-Perez JL
   3. Badge RM
   4. Moran JV

   (2011) LINE-1 elements in structural variation and disease

   Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 12:187–215.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141802

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Berger G
   2. Durand S
   3. Fargier G
   4. Nguyen XN
   5. Cordeil S
   6. Bouaziz S
   7. Muriaux D
   8. Darlix JL
   9. Cimarelli A

   (2011) APOBEC3A is a specific inhibitor of the early phases of HIV-1 infection in myeloid cells

   PLOS Pathogens 7:e1002221.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002221

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bogerd HP
   2. Wiegand HL
   3. Doehle BP
   4. Lueders KK
   5. Cullen BR

   (2006a) APOBEC3A and APOBEC3B are potent inhibitors of LTR-retrotransposon function in human cells

   Nucleic Acids Research 34:89–95.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkj416

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bogerd HP
   2. Wiegand HL
   3. Hulme AE
   4. Garcia-Perez JL
   5. O'Shea KS
   6. Moran JV
   7. Cullen BR

   (2006b) Cellular inhibitors of long interspersed element 1 and Alu retrotransposition

   Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103:8780–8785.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0603313103

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Brouha B
   2. Schustak J
   3. Badge RM
   4. Lutz-Prigge S
   5. Farley AH
   6. Moran JV
   7. Kazazian HH Jnr

   (2003) Hot L1s account for the bulk of retrotransposition in the human population

   Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100:5280–5285.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0831042100

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Burns MB
   2. Lackey L
   3. Carpenter MA
   4. Rathore A
   5. Land AM
   6. Leonard B
   7. Refsland EW
   8. Kotandeniya D
   9. Tretyakova N
   10. Nikas JB
   11. Yee D
   12. Temiz NA
   13. Donohue DE
   14. McDougle RM
   15. Brown WL
   16. Law EK
   17. Harris RS

   (2013a) APOBEC3B is an enzymatic source of mutation in breast cancer

   Nature 494:366–370.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11881

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Burns MB
   2. Temiz NA
   3. Harris RS

   (2013b) Evidence for APOBEC3B mutagenesis in multiple human cancers

   Nature Genetics 45:977–983.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2701

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chen H
   2. Lilley CE
   3. Yu Q
   4. Lee DV
   5. Chou J
   6. Narvaiza I
   7. Landau NR
   8. Weitzman MD

   (2006) APOBEC3A is a potent inhibitor of adeno-associated virus and retrotransposons

   Current Biology: CB 16:480–485.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.01.031

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Cost GJ
   2. Feng Q
   3. Jacquier A
   4. Boeke JD

   (2002) Human L1 element target-primed reverse transcription in vitro

   The EMBO Journal 21:5899–5910.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdf592

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Coufal NG
    2. Garcia-Perez JL
    3. Peng GE
    4. Marchetto MC
    5. Muotri AR
    6. Mu Y
    7. Carson CT
    8. Macia A
    9. Moran JV
    10. Gage FH

    (2011) Ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) modulates long interspersed element-1 (L1) retrotransposition in human neural stem cells

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:20382–20387.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100273108

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. de Boer M
    2. van Leeuwen K
    3. Geissler J
    4. Weemaes CM
    5. van den Berg TK
    6. Kuijpers TW
    7. Warris A
    8. Roos D

    (2014) Primary immunodeficiency caused by an Exonized Retroposed Gene Copy inserted in the CYBB gene

    Human Mutation 35:486–496.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.22519

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Dombroski BA
    2. Mathias SL
    3. Nanthakumar E
    4. Scott AF
    5. Kazazian HH Jnr

    (1991) Isolation of an active human transposable element

    Science 254:1805–1808.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1662412

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Dombroski BA
    2. Scott AF
    3. Kazazian HH Jnr

    (1993) Two additional potential retrotransposons isolated from a human L1 subfamily that contains an active retrotransposable element

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90:6513–6517.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.90.14.6513

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Doucet AJ
    2. Hulme AE
    3. Sahinovic E
    4. Kulpa DA
    5. Moldovan JB
    6. Kopera HC
    7. Athanikar JN
    8. Hasnaoui M
    9. Bucheton A
    10. Moran JV
    11. Gilbert N

    (2010) Characterization of LINE-1 ribonucleoprotein particles

    PLOS Genetics 6:e1001150.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001150

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Ergun S
    2. Buschmann C
    3. Heukeshoven J
    4. Dammann K
    5. Schnieders F
    6. Lauke H
    7. Chalajour F
    8. Kilic N
    9. Stratling WH
    10. Schumann GG

    (2004) Cell type-specific expression of LINE-1 open reading frames 1 and 2 in fetal and adult human tissues

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 279:27753–27763.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M312985200

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Feng Q
    2. Moran JV
    3. Kazazian HH Jnr
    4. Boeke JD

    (1996) Human L1 retrotransposon encodes a conserved endonuclease required for retrotransposition

    Cell 87:905–916.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81997-2

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Freeman JD
    2. Goodchild NL
    3. Mager DL

    (1994)

    A modified indicator gene for selection of retrotransposition events in mammalian cells

    48–49, Biotechniques, 17, 46, 52.

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Gasior SL
    2. Roy-Engel AM
    3. Deininger PL

    (2008) ERCC1/XPF limits L1 retrotransposition

    DNA Repair 7:983–989.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2008.02.006

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Gilbert N
    2. Lutz S
    3. Morrish TA
    4. Moran JV

    (2005) Multiple fates of L1 retrotransposition intermediates in cultured human cells

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 25:7780–7795.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.25.17.7780-7795.2005

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Gilbert N
    2. Lutz-Prigge S
    3. Moran JV

    (2002) Genomic deletions created upon LINE-1 retrotransposition

    Cell 110:315–325.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00828-0

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Goodier JL
    2. Ostertag EM
    3. Du K
    4. Kazazian HH Jnr

    (2001) A novel active L1 retrotransposon subfamily in the mouse

    Genome Research 11:1677–1685.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.198301

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Goodman MF
    2. Scharff MD
    3. Romesberg FE

    (2007) AID-initiated purposeful mutations in immunoglobulin genes

    Advances in Immunology 94:127–155.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2776(06)94005-X

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Grimaldi G
    2. Skowronski J
    3. Singer MF

    (1984)

    Defining the beginning and end of KpnI family segments

    The EMBO Journal 3:1753–1759.

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Han JS
    2. Boeke JD

    (2004) A highly active synthetic mammalian retrotransposon

    Nature 429:314–318.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02535

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Hancks DC
    2. Kazazian HH Jnr

    (2012) Active human retrotransposons: variation and disease

    Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 22:191–203.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2012.02.006

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hohjoh H
    2. Singer MF

    (1996)

    Cytoplasmic ribonucleoprotein complexes containing human LINE-1 protein and RNA

    The EMBO Journal 15:630–639.

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Holmes SE
    2. Singer MF
    3. Swergold GD

    (1992)

    Studies on p40, the leucine zipper motif-containing protein encoded by the first open reading frame of an active human LINE-1 transposable element

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 267:19765–19768.

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Inoue H
    2. Nojima H
    3. Okayama H

    (1990) High efficiency transformation of Escherichia coli with plasmids

    Gene 96:23–28.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1119(90)90336-P

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Kaiser SM
    2. Emerman M

    (2006) Uracil DNA glycosylase is dispensable for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 replication and does not contribute to the antiviral effects of the cytidine deaminase Apobec3G

    Journal of Virology 80:875–882.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.80.2.875-882.2006

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Kent WJ

    (2002)

    BLAT–the BLAST-like alignment tool

    656–664, Genome Research, 12, 10.1101/gr.229202, Article published online before March 2002.

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Khazina E
    2. Weichenrieder O

    (2009) Non-LTR retrotransposons encode noncanonical RRM domains in their first open reading frame

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:731–736.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809964106

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Kidd JM
    2. Newman TL
    3. Tuzun E
    4. Kaul R
    5. Eichler EE

    (2007) Population stratification of a common APOBEC gene deletion polymorphism

    PLOS Genetics 3:e63.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030063

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Kinomoto M
    2. Kanno T
    3. Shimura M
    4. Ishizaka Y
    5. Kojima A
    6. Kurata T
    7. Sata T
    8. Tokunaga K

    (2007) All APOBEC3 family proteins differentially inhibit LINE-1 retrotransposition

    Nucleic Acids Research 35:2955–2964.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm181

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Koning FA
    2. Goujon C
    3. Bauby H
    4. Malim MH

    (2011) Target cell-mediated editing of HIV-1 cDNA by APOBEC3 proteins in human macrophages

    Journal of Virology 85:13448–13452.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00775-11

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kopera HC
    2. Moldovan JB
    3. Morrish TA
    4. Garcia-Perez JL
    5. Moran JV

    (2011) Similarities between long interspersed element-1 (LINE-1) reverse transcriptase and telomerase

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:20345–20350.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100275108

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Krokan HE
    2. Drablos F
    3. Slupphaug G

    (2002) Uracil in DNA–occurrence, consequences and repair

    Oncogene 21:8935–8948.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1205996

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Kulpa DA
    2. Moran JV

    (2005) Ribonucleoprotein particle formation is necessary but not sufficient for LINE-1 retrotransposition

    Human Molecular Genetics 14:3237–3248.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddi354

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Kulpa DA
    2. Moran JV

    (2006) Cis-preferential LINE-1 reverse transcriptase activity in ribonucleoprotein particles

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 13:655–660.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb1107

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Kurzynska-Kokorniak A
    2. Jamburuthugoda VK
    3. Bibillo A
    4. Eickbush TH

    (2007) DNA-directed DNA polymerase and strand displacement activity of the reverse transcriptase encoded by the R2 retrotransposon

    Journal of Molecular Biology 374:322–333.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2007.09.047

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Lander ES
    2. Linton LM
    3. Birren B
    4. Nusbaum C
    5. Zody MC
    6. Baldwin J
    7. Devon K
    8. Dewar K
    9. Doyle M
    10. FitzHugh W
    11. Funke R
    12. Gage D
    13. Harris K
    14. Heaford A
    15. Howland J
    16. Kann L
    17. Lehoczky J
    18. LeVine R
    19. McEwan P
    20. McKernan K
    21. Meldrim J
    22. Mesirov JP
    23. Miranda C
    24. Morris W
    25. Naylor J
    26. Raymond C
    27. Rosetti M
    28. Santos R
    29. Sheridan A
    30. Sougnez C
    31. Stange-Thomann N
    32. Stojanovic N
    33. Subramanian A
    34. Wyman D
    35. Rogers J
    36. Sulston J
    37. Ainscough R
    38. Beck S
    39. Bentley D
    40. Burton J
    41. Clee C
    42. Carter N
    43. Coulson A
    44. Deadman R
    45. Deloukas P
    46. Dunham A
    47. Dunham I
    48. Durbin R
    49. French L
    50. Grafham D
    51. Gregory S
    52. Hubbard T
    53. Humphray S
    54. Hunt A
    55. Jones M
    56. Lloyd C
    57. McMurray A
    58. Matthews L
    59. Mercer S
    60. Milne S
    61. Mullikin JC
    62. Mungall A
    63. Plumb R
    64. Ross M
    65. Shownkeen R
    66. Sims S
    67. Waterston RH
    68. Wilson RK
    69. Hillier LW
    70. McPherson JD
    71. Marra MA
    72. Mardis ER
    73. Fulton LA
    74. Chinwalla AT
    75. Pepin KH
    76. Gish WR
    77. Chissoe SL
    78. Wendl MC
    79. Delehaunty KD
    80. Miner TL
    81. Delehaunty A
    82. Kramer JB
    83. Cook LL
    84. Fulton RS
    85. Johnson DL
    86. Minx PJ
    87. Clifton SW
    88. Hawkins T
    89. Branscomb E
    90. Predki P
    91. Richardson P
    92. Wenning S
    93. Slezak T
    94. Doggett N
    95. Cheng JF
    96. Olsen A
    97. Lucas S
    98. Elkin C
    99. Uberbacher E
    100. Frazier M
    101. Gibbs RA
    102. Muzny DM
    103. Scherer SE
    104. Bouck JB
    105. Sodergren EJ
    106. Worley KC
    107. Rives CM
    108. Gorrell JH
    109. Metzker ML
    110. Naylor SL
    111. Kucherlapati RS
    112. Nelson DL
    113. Weinstock GM
    114. Sakaki Y
    115. Fujiyama A
    116. Hattori M
    117. Yada T
    118. Toyoda A
    119. Itoh T
    120. Kawagoe C
    121. Watanabe H
    122. Totoki Y
    123. Taylor T
    124. Weissenbach J
    125. Heilig R
    126. Saurin W
    127. Artiguenave F
    128. Brottier P
    129. Bruls T
    130. Pelletier E
    131. Robert C
    132. Wincker P
    133. Smith DR
    134. Doucette-Stamm L
    135. Rubenfield M
    136. Weinstock K
    137. Lee HM
    138. Dubois J
    139. Rosenthal A
    140. Platzer M
    141. Nyakatura G
    142. Taudien S
    143. Rump A
    144. Yang H
    145. Yu J
    146. Wang J
    147. Huang G
    148. Gu J
    149. Hood L
    150. Rowen L
    151. Madan A
    152. Qin S
    153. Davis RW
    154. Federspiel NA
    155. Abola AP
    156. Proctor MJ
    157. Myers RM
    158. Schmutz J
    159. Dickson M
    160. Grimwood J
    161. Cox DR
    162. Olson MV
    163. Kaul R
    164. Raymond C
    165. Shimizu N
    166. Kawasaki K
    167. Minoshima S
    168. Evans GA
    169. Athanasiou M
    170. Schultz R
    171. Roe BA
    172. Chen F
    173. Pan H
    174. Ramser J
    175. Lehrach H
    176. Reinhardt R
    177. McCombie WR
    178. de la Bastide M
    179. Dedhia N
    180. Blöcker H
    181. Hornischer K
    182. Nordsiek G
    183. Agarwala R
    184. Aravind L
    185. Bailey JA
    186. Bateman A
    187. Batzoglou S
    188. Birney E
    189. Bork P
    190. Brown DG
    191. Burge CB
    192. Cerutti L
    193. Chen HC
    194. Church D
    195. Clamp M
    196. Copley RR
    197. Doerks T
    198. Eddy SR
    199. Eichler EE
    200. Furey TS
    201. Galagan J
    202. Gilbert JG
    203. Harmon C
    204. Hayashizaki Y
    205. Haussler D
    206. Hermjakob H
    207. Hokamp K
    208. Jang W
    209. Johnson LS
    210. Jones TA
    211. Kasif S
    212. Kaspryzk A
    213. Kennedy S
    214. Kent WJ
    215. Kitts P
    216. Koonin EV
    217. Korf I
    218. Kulp D
    219. Lancet D
    220. Lowe TM
    221. McLysaght A
    222. Mikkelsen T
    223. Moran JV
    224. Mulder N
    225. Pollara VJ
    226. Ponting CP
    227. Schuler G
    228. Schultz J
    229. Slater G
    230. Smit AF
    231. Stupka E
    232. Szustakowski J
    233. Thierry-Mieg D
    234. Thierry-Mieg J
    235. Wagner L
    236. Wallis J
    237. Wheeler R
    238. Williams A
    239. Wolf YI
    240. Wolfe KH
    241. Yang SP
    242. Yeh RF
    243. Collins F
    244. Guyer MS
    245. Peterson J
    246. Felsenfeld A
    247. Wetterstrand KA
    248. Patrinos A
    249. Morgan MJ
    250. de Jong P
    251. Catanese JJ
    252. Osoegawa K
    253. Shizuya H
    254. Choi S
    255. Chen YJ
    256. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium

    (2001) Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome

    Nature 409:860–921.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35057062

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Landry S
    2. Narvaiza I
    3. Linfesty DC
    4. Weitzman MD

    (2011) APOBEC3A can activate the DNA damage response and cause cell-cycle arrest

    EMBO Reports 12:444–450.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.46

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Levin HL
    2. Moran JV

    (2011) Dynamic interactions between transposable elements and their hosts

    Nature Reviews Genetics 12:615–627.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3030

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Luan DD
    2. Korman MH
    3. Jakubczak JL
    4. Eickbush TH

    (1993) Reverse transcription of R2Bm RNA is primed by a nick at the chromosomal target site: a mechanism for non-LTR retrotransposition

    Cell 72:595–605.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(93)90078-5

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Marchetto MC
    2. Narvaiza I
    3. Denli AM
    4. Benner C
    5. Lazzarini TA
    6. Nathanson JL
    7. Paquola AC
    8. Desai KN
    9. Herai RH
    10. Weitzman MD
    11. Yeo GW
    12. Muotri AR
    13. Gage FH

    (2013) Differential L1 regulation in pluripotent stem cells of humans and apes

    Nature 503:525–529.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12686

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Martin SL
    2. Branciforte D
    3. Keller D
    4. Bain DL

    (2003) Trimeric structure for an essential protein in L1 retrotransposition

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100:13815–13820.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2336221100

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Martin SL
    2. Bushman FD

    (2001) Nucleic acid chaperone activity of the ORF1 protein from the mouse LINE-1 retrotransposon

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 21:467–475.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.21.2.467-475.2001

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Mathias SL
    2. Scott AF
    3. Kazazian HH Jnr
    4. Boeke JD
    5. Gabriel A

    (1991) Reverse transcriptase encoded by a human transposable element

    Science 254:1808–1810.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1722352

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Miller AD
    2. Rosman GJ

    (1989)

    Improved retroviral vectors for gene transfer and expression

    980–982, Biotechniques, 7, 984–986, 989–990.

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Moran JV
    2. Holmes SE
    3. Naas TP
    4. DeBerardinis RJ
    5. Boeke JD
    6. Kazazian HH Jnr

    (1996) High frequency retrotransposition in cultured mammalian cells

    Cell 87:917–927.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81998-4

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Morrish TA
    2. Garcia-Perez JL
    3. Stamato TD
    4. Taccioli GE
    5. Sekiguchi J
    6. Moran JV

    (2007) Endonuclease-independent LINE-1 retrotransposition at mammalian telomeres

    Nature 446:208–212.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05560

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Morrish TA
    2. Gilbert N
    3. Myers JS
    4. Vincent BJ
    5. Stamato TD
    6. Taccioli GE
    7. Batzer MA
    8. Moran JV

    (2002) DNA repair mediated by endonuclease-independent LINE-1 retrotransposition

    Nature Genetics 31:159–165.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng898

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Muckenfuss H
    2. Hamdorf M
    3. Held U
    4. Perkovic M
    5. Lower J
    6. Cichutek K
    7. Flory E
    8. Schumann GG
    9. Munk C

    (2006) APOBEC3 proteins inhibit human LINE-1 retrotransposition

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 281:22161–22172.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M601716200

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Naas TP
    2. DeBerardinis RJ
    3. Moran JV
    4. Ostertag EM
    5. Kingsmore SF
    6. Seldin MF
    7. Hayashizaki Y
    8. Martin SL
    9. Kazazian HH

    (1998) An actively retrotransposing, novel subfamily of mouse L1 elements

    The EMBO Journal 17:590–597.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/17.2.590

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Narvaiza I
    2. Landry S
    3. Weitzman MD

    (2012) APOBEC3 proteins and genomic stability: the high cost of a good defense

    Cell Cycle 11:33–38.

    https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.11.1.18706

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Narvaiza I
    2. Linfesty DC
    3. Greener BN
    4. Hakata Y
    5. Pintel DJ
    6. Logue E
    7. Landau NR
    8. Weitzman MD

    (2009) Deaminase-independent inhibition of parvoviruses by the APOBEC3A cytidine deaminase

    PLOS Pathogens 5:e1000439.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000439

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Niewiadomska AM
    2. Tian C
    3. Tan L
    4. Wang T
    5. Sarkis PT
    6. Yu XF

    (2007) Differential inhibition of long interspersed element 1 by APOBEC3 does not correlate with high-molecular-mass-complex formation or P-body association

    Journal of Virology 81:9577–9583.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02800-06

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Nik-Zainal S
    2. Alexandrov LB
    3. Wedge DC
    4. Van Loo P
    5. Greenman CD
    6. Raine K
    7. Jones D
    8. Hinton J
    9. Marshall J
    10. Stebbings LA
    11. Menzies A
    12. Martin S
    13. Leung K
    14. Chen L
    15. Leroy C
    16. Ramakrishna M
    17. Rance R
    18. Lau KW
    19. Mudie LJ
    20. Varela I
    21. McBride DJ
    22. Bignell GR
    23. Cooke SL
    24. Shlien A
    25. Gamble J
    26. Whitmore I
    27. Maddison M
    28. Tarpey PS
    29. Davies HR
    30. Papaemmanuil E
    31. Stephens PJ
    32. McLaren S
    33. Butler AP
    34. Teague JW
    35. Jönsson G
    36. Garber JE
    37. Silver D
    38. Miron P
    39. Fatima A
    40. Boyault S
    41. Langerød A
    42. Tutt A
    43. Martens JW
    44. Aparicio SA
    45. Borg Å
    46. Salomon AV
    47. Thomas G
    48. Børresen-Dale AL
    49. Richardson AL
    50. Neuberger MS
    51. Futreal PA
    52. Campbell PJ
    53. Stratton MR
    54. Breast Cancer Working Group of the International Cancer Genome Consortium

    (2012) Mutational processes molding the genomes of 21 breast cancers

    Cell 149:979–993.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.04.024

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Refsland EW
    2. Stenglein MD
    3. Shindo K
    4. Albin JS
    5. Brown WL
    6. Harris RS

    (2010) Quantitative profiling of the full APOBEC3 mRNA repertoire in lymphocytes and tissues: implications for HIV-1 restriction

    Nucleic Acids Research 38:4274–4284.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq174

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Roberts SA
    2. Lawrence MS
    3. Klimczak LJ
    4. Grimm SA
    5. Fargo D
    6. Stojanov P
    7. Kiezun A
    8. Kryukov GV
    9. Carter SL
    10. Saksena G
    11. Harris S
    12. Shah RR
    13. Resnick MA
    14. Getz G
    15. Gordenin DA

    (2013) An APOBEC cytidine deaminase mutagenesis pattern is widespread in human cancers

    Nature Genetics 45:970–976.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2702

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Roberts SA
    2. Sterling J
    3. Thompson C
    4. Harris S
    5. Mav D
    6. Shah R
    7. Klimczak LJ
    8. Kryukov GV
    9. Malc E
    10. Mieczkowski PA
    11. Resnick MA
    12. Gordenin DA

    (2012) Clustered mutations in yeast and in human cancers can arise from damaged long single-strand DNA regions

    Molecular Cell 46:424–435.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2012.03.030

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Sassaman DM
    2. Dombroski BA
    3. Moran JV
    4. Kimberland ML
    5. Naas TP
    6. DeBerardinis RJ
    7. Gabriel A
    8. Swergold GD
    9. Kazazian HH Jnr

    (1997) Many human L1 elements are capable of retrotransposition

    Nature Genetics 16:37–43.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0597-37

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Scott AF
    2. Schmeckpeper BJ
    3. Abdelrazik M
    4. Comey CT
    5. O'Hara B
    6. Rossiter JP
    7. Cooley T
    8. Heath P
    9. Smith KD
    10. Margolet L

    (1987) Origin of the human L1 elements: proposed progenitor genes deduced from a consensus DNA sequence

    Genomics 1:113–125.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0888-7543(87)90003-6

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Smith D
    2. Zhong J
    3. Matsuura M
    4. Lambowitz AM
    5. Belfort M

    (2005) Recruitment of host functions suggests a repair pathway for late steps in group II intron retrohoming

    Genes & Development 19:2477–2487.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1345105

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Stenglein MD
    2. Burns MB
    3. Li M
    4. Lengyel J
    5. Harris RS

    (2010) APOBEC3 proteins mediate the clearance of foreign DNA from human cells

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 17:222–229.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1744

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Sugano T
    2. Kajikawa M
    3. Okada N

    (2006) Isolation and characterization of retrotransposition-competent LINEs from zebrafish

    Gene 365:74–82.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2005.09.037

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Taylor BJ
    2. Nik-Zainal S
    3. Wu YL
    4. Stebbings LA
    5. Raine K
    6. Campbell PJ
    7. Rada C
    8. Stratton MR
    9. Neuberger MS

    (2013a) DNA deaminases induce break-associated mutation showers with implication of APOBEC3B and 3A in breast cancer kataegis

    eLife 2:e00534.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00534

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Taylor MS
    2. Lacava J
    3. Mita P
    4. Molloy KR
    5. Huang CR
    6. Li D
    7. Adney EM
    8. Jiang H
    9. Burns KH
    10. Chait BT
    11. Rout MP
    12. Boeke JD
    13. Dai L

    (2013b) Affinity proteomics reveals human host factors implicated in discrete stages of LINE-1 retrotransposition

    Cell 155:1034–1048.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.10.021

    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Thielen BK
    2. McNevin JP
    3. McElrath MJ
    4. Hunt BV
    5. Klein KC
    6. Lingappa JR

    (2010) Innate immune signaling induces high levels of TC-specific deaminase activity in primary monocyte-derived cells through expression of APOBEC3A isoforms

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 285:27753–27766.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M110.102822

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. van den Hurk JA
    2. Meij IC
    3. Seleme MC
    4. Kano H
    5. Nikopoulos K
    6. Hoefsloot LH
    7. Sistermans EA
    8. de Wijs IJ
    9. Mukhopadhyay A
    10. Plomp AS
    11. de Jong PT
    12. Kazazian HH
    13. Cremers FP

    (2007) L1 retrotransposition can occur early in human embryonic development

    Human Molecular Genetics 16:1587–1592.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddm108

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Wei W
    2. Gilbert N
    3. Ooi SL
    4. Lawler JF
    5. Ostertag EM
    6. Kazazian HH
    7. Boeke JD
    8. Moran JV

    (2001) Human L1 retrotransposition: cis preference versus trans complementation

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 21:1429–1439.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.21.4.1429-1439.2001

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Wei W
    2. Morrish TA
    3. Alisch RS
    4. Moran JV

    (2000) A transient assay reveals that cultured human cells can accommodate multiple LINE-1 retrotransposition events

    Analytical Biochemistry 284:435–438.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/abio.2000.4675

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Wissing S
    2. Montano M
    3. Garcia-Perez JL
    4. Moran JV
    5. Greene WC

    (2011) Endogenous APOBEC3B restricts LINE-1 retrotransposition in transformed cells and human embryonic stem cells

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 286:36427–36437.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.251058

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Sandra R Richardson

   Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States

   Contribution

   SRR, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   risandra@umich.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared.

2. Iñigo Narvaiza

   Laboratory of Genetics, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States

   Contribution

   IN, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared.

3. Randy A Planegger

   Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States

   Contribution

   RAP, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared.

4. Matthew D Weitzman

   Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, United States

   Contribution

   MDW, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared.

5. John V Moran

   1. Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States
   2. Department of Internal Medicine, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, United States

   Contribution

   JVM, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   moranj@umich.edu

   Competing interests

   JVM: is an inventor on patent 6,150,160. Kazazian, H.H., Boeke, J.D., Moran, J.V., and Dombroski, B.A.: Compositions and methods of use of mammalian retrotransposons.

• 2,899

  views

• 261

  downloads

• 113

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.