Non-crossover gene conversions show strong GC bias and unexpected clustering in humans

  1. Amy L Williams  Is a corresponding author
  2. Giulio Genovese
  3. Thomas Dyer
  4. Nicolas Altemose
  5. Katherine Truax
  6. Goo Jun
  7. Nick Patterson
  8. Simon R Myers
  9. Joanne E Curran
  10. Ravi Duggirala
  11. John Blangero
  12. David Reich
  13. Molly Przeworski
  14. for the T2D-GENES Consortium
  1. Cornell University, United States
  2. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, United States
  3. Texas Biomedical Research Institute, United States
  4. Oxford University, United Kingdom
  5. University of Michigan, United States
  6. Columbia University, United States

Abstract

Although the past decade has seen tremendous progress in our understanding of fine-scale recombination, little is known about non-crossover (NCO) gene conversion. We report the first genome-wide study of NCO events in humans. Using SNP array data from 98 meioses, we identified 103 sites affected by NCO, of which 50/52 were confirmed in sequence data. Overlap with double strand break (DSB) hotspots indicates that most of the events are likely of meiotic origin. We estimate that a site is involved in a NCO at a rate of 5.9×10-6/bp/generation, consistent with sperm-typing studies, and infer that tract lengths span at least an order of magnitude. Observed NCO events show strong allelic bias at heterozygous AT/GC SNPs, with 68% (58-78%) transmitting GC alleles (P=5×10-4). Strikingly, in 4 of 15 regions with resequencing data, multiple disjoint NCO tracts cluster in close proximity (~20-30 kb), a phenomenon not previously seen in mammals.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Amy L Williams

    Department of Biological Statistics and Computational Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    For correspondence
    awilliams@cornell.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Giulio Genovese

    Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Thomas Dyer

    Department of Genetics, Texas Biomedical Research Institute, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Nicolas Altemose

    Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Katherine Truax

    Department of Genetics, Texas Biomedical Research Institute, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Goo Jun

    Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Nick Patterson

    Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Simon R Myers

    Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Joanne E Curran

    Department of Genetics, Texas Biomedical Research Institute, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Ravi Duggirala

    Department of Genetics, Texas Biomedical Research Institute, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. John Blangero

    Department of Genetics, Texas Biomedical Research Institute, San Antonio, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. David Reich

    Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Molly Przeworski

    Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    Molly Przeworski, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Bernard de Massy, Institute of Human Genetics, CNRS UPR 1142, France

Ethics

Human subjects: Institutional review board exemption was given for this study from the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT and the Texas Biomedical Research Institute. The analysis was entirely conducted using anonymous identifiers.

Version history

  1. Received: September 5, 2014
  2. Accepted: March 20, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 25, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 22, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Williams et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,748
    Page views
  • 631
    Downloads
  • 59
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Amy L Williams
  2. Giulio Genovese
  3. Thomas Dyer
  4. Nicolas Altemose
  5. Katherine Truax
  6. Goo Jun
  7. Nick Patterson
  8. Simon R Myers
  9. Joanne E Curran
  10. Ravi Duggirala
  11. John Blangero
  12. David Reich
  13. Molly Przeworski
  14. for the T2D-GENES Consortium
(2015)
Non-crossover gene conversions show strong GC bias and unexpected clustering in humans
eLife 4:e04637.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04637

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04637

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Allison Coté, Aoife O'Farrell ... Arjun Raj
    Research Article

    Splicing is the stepwise molecular process by which introns are removed from pre-mRNA and exons are joined together to form mature mRNA sequences. The ordering and spatial distribution of these steps remain controversial, with opposing models suggesting splicing occurs either during or after transcription. We used single-molecule RNA FISH, expansion microscopy, and live-cell imaging to reveal the spatiotemporal distribution of nascent transcripts in mammalian cells. At super-resolution levels, we found that pre-mRNA formed clouds around the transcription site. These clouds indicate the existence of a transcription-site-proximal zone through which RNA move more slowly than in the nucleoplasm. Full-length pre-mRNA undergo continuous splicing as they move through this zone following transcription, suggesting a model in which splicing can occur post-transcriptionally but still within the proximity of the transcription site, thus seeming co-transcriptional by most assays. These results may unify conflicting reports of co-transcriptional versus post-transcriptional splicing.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Maria L Adelus, Jiacheng Ding ... Casey E Romanoski
    Research Article

    Heterogeneity in endothelial cell (EC) sub-phenotypes is becoming increasingly appreciated in atherosclerosis progression. Still, studies quantifying EC heterogeneity across whole transcriptomes and epigenomes in both in vitro and in vivo models are lacking. Multiomic profiling concurrently measuring transcriptomes and accessible chromatin in the same single cells was performed on six distinct primary cultures of human aortic ECs (HAECs) exposed to activating environments characteristic of the atherosclerotic microenvironment in vitro. Meta-analysis of single-cell transcriptomes across 17 human ex vivo arterial specimens was performed and two computational approaches quantitatively evaluated the similarity in molecular profiles between heterogeneous in vitro and ex vivo cell profiles. HAEC cultures were reproducibly populated by four major clusters with distinct pathway enrichment profiles and modest heterogeneous responses: EC1-angiogenic, EC2-proliferative, EC3-activated/mesenchymal-like, and EC4-mesenchymal. Quantitative comparisons between in vitro and ex vivo transcriptomes confirmed EC1 and EC2 as most canonically EC-like, and EC4 as most mesenchymal with minimal effects elicited by siERG and IL1B. Lastly, accessible chromatin regions unique to EC2 and EC4 were most enriched for coronary artery disease (CAD)-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms from Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), suggesting that these cell phenotypes harbor CAD-modulating mechanisms. Primary EC cultures contain markedly heterogeneous cell subtypes defined by their molecular profiles. Surprisingly, the perturbations used here only modestly shifted cells between subpopulations, suggesting relatively stable molecular phenotypes in culture. Identifying consistently heterogeneous EC subpopulations between in vitro and ex vivo models should pave the way for improving in vitro systems while enabling the mechanisms governing heterogeneous cell state decisions.