PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14706463

Direct IBD mapping: identical-by-descent mapping without genotyping.

Denis Smirnov·Alan Bruzel·Michael Morley·Vivian G Cheung
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Direct identical-by-descent (IBD) mapping is a technique, that combines genomic mismatch scanning (GMS) and DNA microarray technology, for mapping regions shared IBD between two individuals without locus-by-locus genotyping or sequencing. The lack of reagents has limited its widespread application. In particular, two key reagents have been limiting, 1). mismatch repair proteins MutS, L and H, and 2). genomic microarrays for identifying the genomic locations of the GMS-selected IBD fragments. Here, we describe steps that optimized the procedure and resources that will facilitate the development of direct IBD mapping.

Explore related subjects

Base Pair MismatchChromosome MappingFamily HealthGenetics, MedicalGenome, HumanHumansInheritance PatternsNucleic Acid HybridizationOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Denis Smirnov, Alan Bruzel, Michael Morley, Vivian G Cheung. 2004. Direct IBD mapping: identical-by-descent mapping without genotyping.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2003.08.002

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Development of thermodynamic models for simulating probe dissociation profiles in fluorescence in situ hybridization.

Stringency in ribosomal RNA (rRNA)-targeted fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is typically adjusted with formamide, and the optimum formamide concentration at which the probe can hybridize with the target rRNA, but not with rRNAs with mismatches, is to be found experimentally. This is a difficult task when target or closest non-target organisms are not available in pure culture, or when there are numerous non-targets of concern. The objective of this work was to formulate mechanistic models capable of simulating the effect of formamide on probe dissociation. Using a previously described equilibrium model of FISH [Yilmaz and Noguera (2004) Applied and Environmental Microbiology 70(12):7126-7139] as the basis, the effect of formamide on free energy changes of probe-target duplex formation (DeltaG(1)(0)) and folding of target region (DeltaG(3)(0)) was simulated to be linear, and models differing in the definitions of the slopes of these relationships (m(1) and m(3)) were calibrated using experimental dissociation profiles for 27 probes targeting the 16S rRNA of Escherichia coli (E. coli). A good level of predictive power was obtained when m(1) was linearly related to probe length and when m(3) was made proportional to DeltaG(3)(0). The effect of single mismatches on probe dissociation with formamide was also studied, although at a preliminary level. The expected changes in DeltaG(1)(0) with the introduction of mismatches were not sufficient to capture the overall trends of mismatched dissociation profiles. In conclusion, this study offers the first theoretical method to calculate dissociation profiles for perfectly matched probes, and suggests a direction to systematically evaluate the effect of formamide on mismatched probes.

Base Pair Mismatch↗
PubMed2007

Folding cooperativity in RNA and DNA is dependent on position in the helix.

Secondary structural motifs play essential roles in the folding and function of RNA and DNA molecules. Previous work from our lab compared the folding of small DNA and RNA hairpin loops containing a sheared GA pair [Moody, E. M., Feerar, J. C., and Bevilacqua, P. C. (2004) Biochemistry 43, 7992-7998]. We found that the small DNA hairpins fold in a highly cooperative manner with indirect coupling, while their RNA counterparts fold in a much less cooperative fashion and display direct coupling. Herein, we extend this study to the double-stranded helix. We carried out double mutant cycles on base pairs having identical nearest-neighbor contexts but located in either external or internal helical registers. In the external register, both RNA and DNA exhibit extensive folding cooperativity between the penultimate and terminal base pair, which is independent of mismatch identity. In contrast, DNA exhibits virtually no folding cooperativity in the center of the helix, while RNA maintains substantial coupling, which is dependent on mismatch identity. Two models account for these non-nearest-neighbor effects: one involves the unfavorable entropy of helix initiation common to DNA and RNA, and the other involves steric and electrostatic strain peculiar to RNA. These data show that RNA can display cooperativity less than, greater than, or equal to that of DNA depending on context and position.

Base Pair Mismatch↗
PubMed2007

Detection of labeled abasic sites in damaged DNA by capillary electrophoresis with laser-induced fluorescence.

Removal of nucleobases from the DNA backbone leads to the formation of abasic sites. The rate of abasic site formation is significantly increased for chemically damaged nucleobases. Thus, abasic sites serve as general biomarkers for the quantification of DNA damage. Herein, we show that capillary electrophoresis with laser-induced fluorescence (CE-LIF) can be used to detect the amount of abasic sites with very high sensitivity. For proof of concept, DNA was incubated with methylmethane sulfonate (MMS) and the damaged bases were removed by incubation at 80 degrees C. The resulting abasic sites were then tagged with a fluorescent aldehyde-reactive probe (FARP). The DNA was precipitated with ethanol, and then analyzed by CE-LIF. CE-LIF and HPLC analysis shows that the fluorescently tagged DNA (DNA-FARP) had a peak area directly proportional to the amount of N-7 methyl guanines. The CE-LIF method had a detection limit of 1.2 abasic sites per 1,000,000 bases or ca. 20 attomoles of abasic sites. This provides a general method for detecting DNA damage that is not only faster but also has comparable or better sensitivity than the alternative ELISA-like method.

Base Pair Mismatch↗