 |
|
 |
  |
 |

Analytical Genetics Meeting, August 2009
|
 |
 |
 |
  | Solexa, Copy Number and a Process for Amplification
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | [Questions] We all love duplications,
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | ...but how do they form? (draw)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | (red guys are little repeats)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | We now know that most are rec independent! (add to drawing)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | ...even though amplification and collapse are strongly rec dependent. (add to drawing)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | This is true even if formed between big identities. (add to drawing)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Something makes duplications more efficiently than RecA. What is it?
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | [Model] "Snap-and-Switch" Model
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Replicate through 2 small palindromes
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Nascent chain detaches, snaps back, continues replicating (a lethal strategy)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Only those who strand-switch survive
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Stretch out the new strand, and we get:
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | "sTID" for "symmetrical Tandem Inverted Duplication"
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Under selection, host gets three copies of something nice, but also gets sick!
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Perfect palindromes are nasty, and we have 2 of them!
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Can amplify through terminal direct repeats
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Also amplifies perfect palindromes
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Costs quickly outweigh the benefits
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Relief comes through asymmetric deletions.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Deletion 1 gives partial relief and a fitter host
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Complete relief after deletion 2
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Result is "aTID' for "asymmetric Tandem Inverted Duplication"
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Complete relief also from one large asymmetric deletion
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Our model provides an explanation for rec-independent tandem duplication formation!
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | [Evidence] Nice model -- Where's the evidence?
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Many tandem dup joints determined by multiplex PCR -- easy.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Several aTID joints were found by accident -- extremely difficult.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Joints could not be found for 30% of amplifications formed under selection ("recalcitrant strains")
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | High amplification levels by Southern analysis
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | [Solexa] New and wonderful stuff
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Data generated are tethered reads (draw)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Reads typically 35 bp labelled by position in the reference sequence
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Everything in the DNA pot is sequenced and recorded
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Amplified tandem duplication in F'128
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | ==> approximate array boundaries
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | ==> accurate amplification levels
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | What we're really interested in are atypical read-pairs
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | "The anomalous reads are everything!"
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | These data predict "Strange structures"
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Things not expected from reference sequence
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | In both data sets, we find
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Ephemera such as palindromes & flowers, some derived from snap-backs
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Direct determination of join sequences
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | The usual sequencing recipe: sort -> align -> consensus (draw)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Joint in tandem duplication strain identical to previously determined sequence
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Both inverted join points of TID strain
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | A typical asymmetric divergent join, identical to previously known sequence
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | A major convergent join, determined de novo by Solexa, confirmed afterwards by traditional PCR sequencing
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Complex flower at the cross-over and no deleted material (draw)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | The large flower is more tolerable than perfect palindrome.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | Confirmation of hypothetical intermediate.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | A minor convergent joint with the same complex flower
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | possibly by strand switching 100 bp upstream of the major join (draw)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | We can easily calculate amplification levels and approximate array boundaries.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | We can rapidly detect TIDS and sequence their joins
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | We have direct evidence for intermediates predicted by model
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
  | We can find atypical, low frequency structures
|
 |
 |
|


 |
 |
 |