ARTICLE
Decoding
NF1 Intragenic Copy-Number Variations
Meng-Chang Hsiao,1 Arkadiusz Piotrowski,1,2 Tom Callens,1 Chuanhua Fu,1 Katharina Wimmer,3 Kathleen B.M. Claes,4 and Ludwine Messiaen1,*
Genomic rearrangements can cause both Mendelian and complex disorders. Currently, several major mechanisms causing genomic re-arrangements, such as non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR), non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), fork stalling and template switching (FoSTeS), and microhomology-mediated break-induced replication (MMBIR), have been proposed. However, to what extent these mechanisms contribute to gene-specific pathogenic copy-number variations (CNVs) remains understudied. Furthermore, few studies have resolved these pathogenic alterations at the nucleotide-level. Accordingly, our aim was to explore which mechanisms contribute to a large, unique set of locus-specific non-recurrent genomic rearrangements causing the genetic neurocutaneous disorder neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Through breakpoint-spanning PCR as well as array comparative genomic hybridization, we have iden-tified the breakpoints in 85 unrelated individuals carrying anNF1 intragenic CNV. Furthermore, we characterized the likely rearrange-ment mechanisms of these 85 CNVs, along with those of two additional previously publishedNF1 intragenic CNVs. Unlike the most typical recurrent rearrangements mediated by flanking low-copy repeats (LCRs),NF1 intragenic rearrangements vary in size, location, and rearrangement mechanisms. We propose the DNA-replication-based mechanisms comprising both FoSTeS and/or MMBIR and serial replication stalling to be the predominant mechanisms leading toNF1 intragenic CNVs. In addition to the loop within a 197-bp palin-drome located in intron 40, fourAlu elements located in introns 1, 2, 3, and 50 were also identified as intragenic-rearrangement hotspots withinNF1.
Introduction
Genomic rearrangements, including deletions, duplica-tions, mobile-element inserduplica-tions, copy-number neutral inversions, and translocations, contribute to various disor-ders, as well as to normal phenotypic variation.1–6These rearrangements are mediated by mutational mechanisms that are not completely understood. Currently, several mechanisms have been proposed, including non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR), non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), fork stalling and template switching (FoSTeS), and microhomology-mediated break-induced replication (MMBIR).7–10 NAHR accounts for most of the
recurrent rearrangements sharing a common size and genomic interval and having clustered breakpoints.11
NAHR-mediated rearrangements have their breakpoints within low-copy repeats (LCRs), also known as segmental duplications (SDs), that lead to rearrangement by misalign-ment.12 In contrast, non-recurrent rearrangements have variable sizes and unique breakpoints mediated by NHEJ or FoSTeS and/or MMBIR (FoSTeS/MMBIR). NHEJ bridges, modifies, and connects two broken ends with minimal or no microhomology.13,14 FoSTeS is a replication-based mechanism resulting from a stalled or collapsed replication fork; the stalled strand disengages and invades a nearby replication fork by microhomology.15,16This process may
occur multiple times and may lead to complex rearrange-ments.15,16FoSTeS has been further generalized as MMBIR,
which provides molecular mechanistic details based on experimental studies in multiple model organisms.15,17
Recently, several studies have shown that the majority of
the non-recurrent, locus-specific, pathogenic rearrange-ments are mediated by a diversity of mutational mecha-nisms.18–34 However, these mutational mechanisms are not yet well understood because most of these studies are based on only a limited number of sequenced junctions. Accordingly, our aim was to explore the mechanisms contributing to a large, unique set of locus-specific non-recurrent genomic rearrangements causing the genetic neurocutaneous disorder neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1 [MIM: 162200]). NF1 is a common autosomal-dominant genetic disorder affecting 1 in 3,000 individuals worldwide and is caused by defects in the tumor suppressor NF1 (MIM: 613113).35 The primary clinical features are
multiple cafe´-au-lait spots, skinfold freckling, multiple neurofibromas, Lisch nodules, and other less common manifestations such as optic glioma, tibial dysplasia, and specific tumors.36 Through comprehensive mutation analysis, we have found that ~2% of mutation-positive unrelated individuals carry intragenic deletions or duplica-tions of one or more exons,37 but the contribution of the above-stated mechanisms to intragenic copy-number variations (CNVs) within NF1 has not yet been studied. Here, genomic-DNA-based breakpoint-spanning PCR and array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) were used to clone the breakpoints at the nucleotide level of theNF1 intragenic CNVs in 85 unrelated subjects. We have characterized the likely rearrangement mecha-nism of these 85 CNVs along with two additional previously publishedNF1 CNVs.38,39Unlike recurrent
rear-rangements, mediated by flanking LCRs, NF1 intragenic CNVs originate by different rearrangement mechanisms 1Medical Genomics Laboratory, Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA;2Faculty of Pharmacy, Med-ical University of Gdansk, 80-416 Gdansk, Poland;3Division of Human Genetics, Medical University Innsbruck, Peter-Mayr-Straße 1, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria;4Center for Medical Genetics, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan, 185 9000 Gent, Belgium
*Correspondence:[email protected]
and have diverse sizes and breakpoint positions. Further-more, in addition to the loop within a 197-bp palindrome located in intron 40, fourAlu elements located in introns 1, 2, 3, and 50 were identified as intragenic-rearrangement hotspots withinNF1.
Subjects and Methods
Human Subjects and ClinicalNF1 Mutational Analysis
Samples from subjects withNF1 intragenic CNVs (1 to UAB-84) were ascertained from the University of Alabama at Birming-ham Medical Genomics Laboratory. In addition, breakpoints were identified in one Medical University of Vienna Clinical Insti-tute for Medical and Laboratory Diagnostics subject (MUW-1) who was shown by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) to carry a deletion of exon 2. We also included two sub-jects with previously published NF1 CNVs with known break-points (IRO-1 and UNIMI-1) to investigate the nature and origin of their rearrangement mechanisms.38,39 In total, 87 subjects
withNF1 intragenic CNVs were investigated in this study. Subjects were originally referred for NF1 diagnostic testing. Through comprehensive mutation analysis with an RNA-core assay comple-mented with dosage analysis by MLPA and fluorescence in situ
hybridization,40134 individuals with an intragenic rearrangement have been identified out of a total ~7,200 unrelated NF1-mutation-positive individuals. Sufficient material was available for further studies in 85/134 individuals with such intragenic CNVs, including 75 deletions and 10 duplications (Figure 1). All of the DNA samples were obtained from EDTA blood. An overview of the clinical features of the individuals is presented inTable S1. This study was approved by the University of Alabama at Birming-ham institutional review board. In addition, a waiver of informed consent and patient authorization has been obtained for this study.
High-Resolution aCGH
The DNA of test samples and normal reference samples were labeled with Cy3 and Cy5 fluorophores, respectively, and hybrid-ized to a custom-designed microarray (Agilent design ID number: 026000, GEO platform definition number: GSE64869). Alterna-tively, individual DNA was hybridized and compared to unrelated control DNA. We have designed an array encompassing the coding and non-coding repeat masked regions ofNF1 and the regions both upstream and downstream of the NF1 locus. Potential transcription-factor binding sites and evolutionarily conserved elements within theNF1 locus and its vicinity were also included in the design. Probes associated with highly redundant sequences Figure 1. Global View of 87 IdentifiedNF1 Intragenic CNVs Including 77 Deletions and 10 Duplications
were excluded. The custom array design was submitted for produc-tion via the Agilent Technologies eArray website to be synthesized on 83 15 K array slides. Comparative genomic hybridization was carried out, according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, on a set of positive and negative control DNA samples. The arrays were scanned at 5-mm resolution with an Axon 4000B microarray scanner. Data extraction and normalization were carried out with Feature Extraction software v.9.5. Normalized data were then im-ported into DNA Analytics software and the ADM-2 algorithm was used to detect CNVs; this was followed by manual examina-tion of the covered regions.
Breakpoint-Spanning PCR
NF1 (17q11.2) spans 282 kb comprising 60 exons interspersed with large introns ranging from 0.1 to 60.7 kb. When one or both of the breakpoints of the CNV in an individual were located in large introns such as intron 1 or intron 36 (over 60 kb), aCGH was performed to narrow down the breakpoint interval. For all other individuals, long-range PCR was used to clone the break-points directly. Primers for breakpoint-spanning amplification and sequencing were designed with Primer3. Primer information and PCR conditions are shown inTable S2. To assess the specificity of a rearrangement product, a normal control sample from a healthy individual was always analyzed along with the mutant sample. Breakpoint-spanning PCR was carried out with the Expand Long Template PCR System (Roche) and TaKaRa LA Taq Polymerase (TaKaRa Bio). PCR bands were visualized on a 2% agarose gel. PCR products were sequenced with an automated capillary sequencer (ABI 3730) and analyzed with Sequencing Analysis v.6.0 software (ABI; Life Technologies). PCR and sequencing results were confirmed independently by repeated ex-periments. Mutations were named according to the recommenda-tions of the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) and with reference sequence GenBank: NM_000267.3.
In Silico Analysis of Junction Fragments
For every mapped breakpoint, we performed in silico analyses of the 300 bp of sequences flanking the breakpoints. Sequences were analyzed with BLAT via the UCSC Genome Browser. The breakpoint-junction sequences were aligned and microhomology was annotated. Reference sequences were obtained via the UCSC Genome Browser (hg19). Palindromic sequences were identified by Palindrome search. Quadruplex-forming G-rich sequences (QGRS) were identified by QGRS Mapper. Repetitive elements were uncovered by RepeatMasker. The sequence similarities be-tween repetitive elements were evaluated by Blast2. Fisher’s exact test was performed to verify whether the genomic-rearrangement frequency within AluY (chr17: 29,484,696–29,484,993), AluSx (chr17: 29,477,768–29,478,080), AluSq2 (chr17: 29,489,213– 29,489,460), andAluSx (chr17: 29,678,421–29,678,733) differed significantly in comparison with the frequency within whole
NF1. The mutation effect on coding sequence was evaluated by Alamut Visual mutation analysis software, v.2.6.1 (Interactive Biosoftware).
Results
NF1 Intragenic CNVs Originate by Different
Rearrangement Mechanisms and Have Diverse Sizes and Breakpoint Positions
To decode NF1 intragenic CNV rearrangement mecha-nisms, we sequenced and aligned all 75 deletion and 10 duplication breakpoints to the human genome (UCSC Genome Browser hg19; 5 deletions [from individuals UAB-59 to UAB-63] have been published previously).41 All of these 85 CNVs were submitted to LOVD2_NF1 (curated by Rick van Minkelen). Furthermore, we included two additional published NF1 CNVs (from IRO-1 and UNIMI-1).38,39 We analyzed all 87 junction
fragments for microhomology, potential to adopt non-B DNA structures, repetitive elements, and effect on coding sequence. We further inferred whether the CNV was pre-sent in mosaic form (versus constitutional) by evaluation of the cDNA and MLPA results and rearrangement mechanisms (Table 1, Tables S1 andS3, and Figure S1). Specifically, (1) the presence of normalized MLPA copy-number values for multiple consecutive probes of 0.70– 0.85 (deletion) or 1.15–1.30 (duplication), (2) the pres-ence of abnormal cDNA fragments, and (3) sequencing and breakpoint-identification results confirming the pres-ence of deletion or duplication of the regions implied by MLPA were considered indicative of a mosaic CNV. No further quantification of the level of mosaicism was undertaken. Breakpoints were distributed from intron 1 to intron 57 and rearrangement size ranged from 0.3 kb to 198.1 kb with a mean of 35.7 kb, a median of 12.2 kb, and a distribution biased toward smaller rear-rangements (Figure 1 andFigure S2). Unlike most recur-rent rearrangements mediated by flanking LCRs, the NF1 intragenic rearrangements varied in size, location and rearrangement mechanisms.
Junction Sequences Reveal that the Predominant Mechanism Leading toNF1 CNVs Is Based on DNA Replication
All of the junction sequences were aligned to the reference sequence (hg19) by BLAT for evaluation of their nature and origin. Simple non-recurrent rearrangements with
Table 1. The Rearrangement Mechanisms that Lead toNF1 Intragenic CNVs
Recurrent (NAHR)
Simple Non-recurrent (FoSTeS3 1, NHEJ, and Serial Replication Stalling)
Complex (Multiple NHEJ and Multiple FoSTeS/MMBIR)
Other
(Alu Insertion) Total
Deletions 16 (21%)a 55 (71%) 5 (6%) 1 (1%) 77
Duplications 3 (30%) 7 (70%) 0 0 10
microhomology at the breakpoint junctions were found in 43/87 (49%) individuals, suggesting the predominant mechanism may be induced by DNA double-strand break followed by microhomology-mediated end joining. Furthermore, in 22/87 (25%) rearrangements, an insertion ranging from 1–810 bp was found between the breakpoints (Table S3). Four of these insertions were most likely medi-ated by multiple FoSTeS/MMBIR (2 FoSTeS/MMBIR 3 2 [UAB-21 and UAB-48], 1 FoSTeS/MMBIR 3 3 [UAB-50] and 1 FoSTeS/MMBIR3 5 [UAB-66];Figure 2) and one by multiple NHEJ (UAB-49). Seven insertions consisted of a short stretch of nucleotides ranging from 3 to 31 bp; this stretch could be mapped to the reference sequence close to the breakpoint, suggesting serial replication stalling and re-replication process (Figure 3). Three inser-tions of ~300 bp were mediated by AluY insertion (in UAB-9, UAB-47, and UAB-51;Table S3). Only five break-point junctions were connected with two blunt ends without any inserted sequence (in UAB-13, UAB-25, UAB-26, UAB-42, and UAB-74); another seven CNVs had short insertion with random nucleotides (% 5 bp) at the breakpoints (in UAB-17, UAB-27, UAB-33, UAB-38, UAB-39, UAB-43, and UAB-46), suggesting that the replica-tion-independent NHEJ mechanism was used to ligate these broken ends (Table S3).
Repetitive Elements Contribute to Various Genomic Rearrangements
Repetitive elements present at the breakpoint junctions were identified with the RepeatMasker track in the UCSC Genome Browser. So far, the exact minimum length of sequence homology required for NAHR is still uncer-tain.10Given that the shortest Alu element contributing toAlu-Alu recombination in this study is 135 bp (AluSp, UAB-11), we used 135 bp as a cutoff value for the following analysis of repetitive-elements recombination. Overall, 152Alu and 89 partial L1 elements of R 135 bp are present throughout theNF1 non-coding region, and these highly homologous repetitive elements in direct orientation might mediate NAHR in various combinations (Figure 4). Blast2 analysis was performed to determine the sequence similarity between repetitive elements in identical orienta-tion and thus to infer likely NAHR combinaorienta-tions (Tables S4
and S5). Regarding L1-mediated NAHR, 89 L1 elements (23 in positive orientation and 66 in negative orientation) can theoretically generate 2,398 likely combinations. However, these L1 elements are truncated, and individual copies represent only a small portion of the full L1 ~6-kb consensus sequence (mean of 520 bp, median of 382 bp). Furthermore, individual copies of the truncated L1 ele-ments correspond to different segele-ments of the native L1
Figure 2. Example of a Complicated Rearrangement Mediated by FoSTeS/MMBIR3 5 in UAB-66
The model (not to scale) illustrating the underlying FoSTeS/MMBIR3 5 process is shown at the top. The sequence context in each breakpoint junction is shown at the bottom. The sequence color corresponds to the genomic loci at the top. The red boxes indicate microhomology at the breakpoint junctions. The genomic coordinates were annotated next to the sequence content. During DNA repli-cation, the stalled strand in intron 39 most likely invaded backward to intron 50, stalled again and invaded forward into intron 46, stalled again and invaded backward to intron 49, stalled again and invaded backward to intron 29, and stalled again and invaded forward into intron 46. This multiple FoSTeS/MMBIR process contributed to a complicated genomic rearrangement withinNF1.
consensus sequence. Therefore, the majority of these truncated elements are not viable partners for NAHR. Currently, the exact minimum length of sequence homol-ogy required for NAHR is still uncertain.10Given that the
shortest length of sequence homology between repeti-tive-elements-mediated NAHR is 105 bp in this study (UAB-6), we used 105 bp as the minimum length of sequence homology to evaluate likely NAHR events. Only 26/2,398 combinations with sequence homology R 105 bp between partner L1 elements are present and are likely to mediate NAHR. Furthermore, only one of these 26 likely combinations has been identified as L1-mediated NAHR in this study (UAB-5). This L1-mediated NAHR has the longest identity length (1,038 bp) and highest sequence similarity (89%) of all of the likely L1-L1 combi-nations. On the other hand, there are 152Alu elements of at least 135 bp (72 in positive direction and 80 in negative direction), and they could theoretically generate 5,716 different combinations. Unlike L1 elements however, 133/152 Alu elements comprise the nearly complete consensus sequence (~300 bp). In total, 4,470/5,716 com-binations with sequence similarity greater than 105 bp between partnerAlu elements could theoretically mediate NAHR. In this context,Alu elements are more likely NAHR
partners than L1 elements, which is consistent with the identification of 18 instances of Alu-mediated NAHR (UAB-1 to UAB-3, UAB-6, UAB-7, UAB-10 to UAB-12, UAB-16, UAB-30, UAB-44, UAB-47, UAB-51, UAB-72, UAB-75, UAB-76, UAB-83, and MUW-1; two instances of Alu-Alu-mediated NAHR were most likely followed by an Alu insertion [UAB-47 and UAB-51]) but only one of L1-mediated NAHR (UAB-5) in this study. In addition to being involved in NAHR, Alu elements were also involved in two NHEJ events (UAB-13 and UAB-17), seven FoSTeS/ MMBIR 3 1 or NHEJ rearrangements (UAB-4, UAB-15, UAB-18, UAB-70, UAB-77, UAB-84, and UNIMI-1), one FoSTeS/MMBIR3 2 rearrangement (UAB-48), one multiple NHEJ event (UAB-49), and three serial replication stalling events (UAB-14, UAB-41, and IRO-1), as well as oneAlu insertion (UAB-9), suggesting their important role inNF1 CNVs. Therefore, in as many as 33/87 individuals, the origin for the CNV involved Alu elements. Although Alu insertions resulting from active de novo transposition have been reported in NF1,42 no Alu insertion together
with NAHR has been reported. In this study, UAB-51 has an AluY inserted into intron 36, which thereafter most likely misaligned with an AluSq in intron 35, resulting in deletion of exon 36 (Figure 5). Similar to UAB-51,
Figure 3. Illustration of Likely Serial Replication Stalling and Re-replication Processes onNF1 Intragenic CNVs
SevenNF1 CNVs were most likely mediated by serial replication stalling (UAB-14, UAB-41, UAB-56, UAB-65, UAB-68, UAB-73, and IRO-1). Arrowheads represent the replication-strand direction. The nucleotides within the green arrowheads represent the sequence flanking the breakpoint, and the nucleotides within the gray arrowheads and the light-blue boxes represent the inserted nucleotides. Genomic coordinates (UCSC Genome Browser hg19) were annotated next to the arrowheads.
UAB-47 also has an AluY inserted into intron 30, which thereafter most likely misaligned with anAluSp in intron 29, leading to deletion of exon 30.
NF1 Intragenic Rearrangement Hotspots Are Located within a 197-bp Palindrome and FourAlu Elements Non-B DNA structures are considered to be associated with DNA double-strand breaks.43–45Particularly, within intron 40 ofNF1, a palindromic AT-rich repeat (PATRR17; 197 bp), especially the loop of the palindrome (7 bp), has been identified as an intragenic rearrangement hotspot.41 In
addition to non-B DNA structures,Alu elements were also shown in this study to be involved in recurrent genomic rearrangements. AluY (chr17: 29,484,696–29,484,993) located in intron 2 of NF1, has mediated four NAHRs (UAB-1, UAB-2, UAB-3, and MUW-1). AluSx (chr17: 29,477,768–29,478,080) within intron 1 and AluSq2 (chr17: 29,489,213–29,489,460) within intron 3, as well
as AluSx (chr17: 29,678,421–29,678,733) within intron 50, have each mediated three NAHRs (UAB-1 and 2, UAB-7, UAB-10, UAB-11, UAB-30, UAB-72, UAB-82, and MUW-1). Using Fisher’s exact test, we identified that these fourAlu elements also constitute a significant intragenic rearrangement hotspot withinNF1 among 87 intragenic CNVs (p value< 0.0001).
PATRR17 Has Demonstrated Diverse Rearrangement Mechanisms Leading to Deletions and Translocations Regarding five previously published PATRR17-mediated deletions (UAB-59 to UAB-63), FoSTeS/MMBIR is the most likely rearrangement mechanism because all of the partner breakpoints are located within 7.1 kb upstream of PATRR17, and microhomology is present at all break-point junctions investigated.41 However, in this study we identified a PATRR17-mediated deletion (UAB-68) that has no microhomology at the breakpoint-junction site,
Figure 4. The Repetitive-Element Distribution withinNF1
Overall, 152Alu and 89 L1 elements R 135 bp in size are present throughout the NF1 non-coding region, and these highly homologous repetitive elements might mediate NAHR in various combinations. Exon numbers are shown in squares. The direction of the arrowheads denotes the orientation of the repeats. The asterisks represent the likely NAHR events mediated by these repetitive elements and observed in this study. TheseAlu elements do not demonstrate equal recombination ability. For example, 130/152 Alu elements did not contribute to any recombination in this study, whereasAluY (chr17: 29,484,696–29,484,993), AluSx (chr17: 29,477,768–29,478,080), AluSq2 (chr17: 29,489,213–29,489,460), AluSx (chr17: 29,678,421–29,678,733), AluSx (chr17: 29,484,027–29,484,306), AluSz (chr17: 29,488,772– 29,489,078), andAluYe5 (chr17: 29,511,386–29,511,695) have contributed multiple Alu-Alu recombinations.
and the partner breakpoint is located in the 6.7 kb down-stream of PATRR17, suggesting NHEJ, rather than FoSTeS/ MMBIR, was used to ligate the broken ends. Interestingly, UAB-68’s breakpoint is also located in the loop of PATRR17, which is consistent with previously published PATRR17-mediated deletions and translocation. Besides, the sequence (AT)6AAT (15 bp) has been inserted between breakpoints that can partially be mapped to the PATRR17 loop or perfectly mapped to the PATRR17 arm down-stream of the breakpoint, supporting a serial replication event (Figure 3). Given the sequence context within PARR17, the breakpoint cannot be perfectly mapped to reference sequence hg19 because of PATRR17 sequence variations; therefore, the genomic coordinates associated with PATRR17 are annotated as 296623xx in this study (Table S3,Figure 3, andFigure S1). In addition to playing a role in PATRR17-mediated deletion, a serial replication event is also involved in a PATRR17-mediated chromo-somal translocation.41 Therefore, as a rearrangement hotspot withinNF1, PATRR17 has demonstrated diverse rearrangement mechanisms leading to deletions and translocations.41,46–49
Discussion
Alu Elements Do Not Demonstrate Equal NAHR Ability
Unlike L1 elements, the majority of the 152Alu elements within NF1 are intact and could theoretically generate 5,716 different NAHR combinations. However, only 18 NAHR combinations mediated by 22 Alu elements have been found in this study. Among these 22 Alu elements, AluY (chr17: 29,484,696–29,484,993) was
Figure 5. Example of Alu-Alu-Mediated Recombination Following anAlu Insertion Event in UAB-51
The purple circles represent the exons involved in this rearrangement, and the genomic coordinates were annotated next to the Alu elements. The AluY element inserted intoNF1 intron 36 can be perfectly mapped to 34 different loca-tions in the human genome (BLAT, UCSC Genome Browser hg19), and therefore its original location cannot be determined. Subsequently, this inserted AluY might have misaligned and connected withAluSq (intron 35) and contributed to deletion of exon 36 (~2.5 kb).
involved in four NAHRs; AluSx (chr17: 29,477,768–29,478,080),AluSq2 (chr17: 29,489,213–29,489,460), and AluSx (chr17: 29,678,421–29,678,733) were each involved in three NAHRs; AluSx (chr17: 29,484,027–29,484,306), AluSz (chr17: 29,488,772–29,489,078), andAluYe5 (chr17: 29,511,386–29,511,695) each mediated two NAHRs. Overall, these sevenAlu elements have demon-strated a much stronger ability to mediate NAHR than any otherAlu elements within NF1. Particularly, AluSx (chr17: 29,477,768–29,478,080) and AluY (chr17: 29,484,696– 29,484,993) have mediated a recurrent NAHR, resulting in exon-2 deletion in three unrelated individuals (MUW-1, UAB-1, and UAB-2) with exactly the same breakpoints (chr17: 29,477,816–29,484,743), suggesting a strong recur-rentAlu-mediated NAHR. The deletion in UAB-1 was proven to be absent in both unaffected parents; MUW-1 is from Austria and UAB-2 is from the US; therefore, we consider it unlikely that a founder effect could explain the recurrence of this deletion. Interestingly, palindromic sequences 50-CCTGAGGTCAGG-30 (chr17: 29,477,831–29,477,842) and 50-TCCCAGCACTTTGGGA-30 (chr17: 29,484,724– 29,484,739) have been found close to the breakpoints, suggesting that NAHR was most likely used to repair the potential palindromic-sequence-mediated double-strand breaks. In addition, although Alu elements are present throughoutNF1 (282 kb), 10/18 instances of Alu-mediated NAHR cluster in a 40.7-kb interval (chr17: 29,470,913– 29,511-646) between intron 1 and intron 8, suggesting an Alu-mediated-NAHR hot zone within NF1. We propose that theseAlu elements within this hot zone might be sus-ceptible to DNA double-strand break, and their partnerAlu elements could be in close 3D proximity for NAHR. This finding is consistent with LCR-mediated NAHR;50the
fre-quency ofAlu-mediated recombination is positively associ-ated with the flankingAlu length and inversely influenced by the inter-Alu distance. In addition to NAHR, other non-recurrent CNVs were also more likely to be smaller rear-rangements (Figure S2), suggesting that broken ends tend to choose partner ends in close proximity. Given that the
exact minimum length of sequence homology required for NAHR is uncertain,10recent studies have also proposed that Alu-mediated recombination could be the result of microhomology-mediated replication errors rather than NAHR.21,23,34 However, given that the frequency of
Alu-Alu recombination is positively associated with the sequence similarity between Alu elements, NAHR might be the more likely rearrangement mechanism accounting for Alu-Alu recombination. However, further functional studies may be needed to evaluate the exact rearrangement mechanism.
Replication-Based Mechanism Contributes to the Majority ofNF1 Intragenic CNVs
It was previously thought that most non-recurrent genomic rearrangements are mediated by NHEJ.29,51,52 However, we found that replication-based mechanisms such as FoSTeS/MMBIR, as well as serial replication stalling, might be the major mechanisms leading toNF1 intragenic CNVs. NHEJ is known to ligate two broken ends with limited or no microhomology and leaves an ‘‘information scar’’ including cleavage or insertion of several random nucleotides at the joining site.10,14 In contrast, FoSTeS/
MMBIR takes microhomology as an essential element for stalled-strand annealing to a nearby replication fork.15,16 Here, we identified five breakpoint junctions connected through blunt ends and seven breakpoints with random nucleotides inserted (% 5 bp) at the breakpoints, consis-tent with an ‘‘information scar,’’ suggesting a replication-independent mechanism, NHEJ, was used to ligate broken ends. However, 43 simple non-recurrent rearrangements showed a microhomology at the breakpoint-junction site, suggestive of NHEJ or FoSTeS/MMBIR3 1 rearrange-ment mechanism. Alternatively, inserted sequences found between breakpoints might be the result of serial replica-tion stalling rather than of NHEJ. In the current study, seven likely events of serial replication stalling and four multiple FoSTeS/MMBIR rearrangements were identified, further supporting that replication-based mechanisms contribute to the majority of the NF1 intragenic CNVs. The occurrence of such replication-based mechanisms might be underestimated. For example, Lazaro et al. iden-tified an NF1 exon 40–48 deletion with an insertion between breakpoints and proposed that homologous or nonhomologous recombination contributed to this dele-tion (in IRO-1).39 Interestingly, this insertion can be perfectly mapped to the reference sequence flanking the breakpoint, strongly indicating that serial replication stall-ing and re-replication could have led to this deletion instead (Figure 3). In addition to causing deletions, serial replication stalling also leads to insertions and transloca-tions, further supporting a significant contribution of the replication-based mechanism to genomic rearrange-ments.20,41,53–55Other studies also indicate that the high level of microhomology observed at the breakpoint junc-tions suggests presence of a replication-based mechanism and a mitotic origin.20,23,30,56 Given that
microhomolo-gous sequences are widely distributed in the genome, in addition to investigating sequence context, exploring the DNA spatial proximity and 3D genomic architecture close to the junction site is likely to reveal which DNA interval is susceptible to double-strand break or replica-tion-fork collapse, as well as the accessibility of microho-mologous sequences to enzymes associated with FoSTeS/ MMBIR.56
The Rearrangement Mechanisms Leading to Disease Differ Greatly Among Genes
It was previously thought that most genomic rearrange-ments were formed randomly,57but more recent studies indicate that this is not the case. For example, as many as 70%–80% of DMD (MIM: 310200) mutations are intragenic CNVs.58–61 Ankala et al. proposed that DMD (2.4 Mb long) has several active replication origins and termination junctions (as expected given its size), which may explain the high intragenic CNV frequency, greater than in any other known disease-associated genes, which are usually much smaller and with less or no intragenic replication origins.20 Given that
mammalian replicons on average span 75–150 kb,62and
the average size of a human gene is 27 kb,63 failure of
any single replication origin in such small genes could lead to multigenic rearrangements, rather than intragenic ones. However, the frequency of the individuals’ carrying CNVs inNF2 (95 kb long [MIM: 101000]) and VHL (10 kb long [MIM: 193300]) is ~30%, whereas in NF1 (282 kb long) and PKHD1 (472 kb long [MIM: 263200]), the frequency is only ~2% and ~3%–4%, respectively.37,64 Therefore, the gene size cannot serve as the sole predictor of the intragenic CNV frequency. Other factors, including genomic architecture, spatial proximity, and cellular stress, might also contribute to the genomic-rearrange-ment spectrum, given that the rearrangegenomic-rearrange-ment mecha-nisms leading to disease differ greatly among genes (Table S6).
Intragenic Deletions Are More Prevalent than Duplications withinNF1
A striking observation of the current study is that intra-genic deletions are far more prevalent than intraintra-genic duplications. Although both intragenic deletions and duplications are expected to be pathogenic and lead to NF1, we identified 119 intragenic NF1 deletions and only 15 intragenic duplications in this study. It is unlikely that this difference is due to bias of detection from the technique used in the course of the study, given that MLPA analysis was applied to all samples. MLPA performs equally well for detection of deletions as well as duplica-tions.65 In addition, our findings are in line with the
results reported by Imbard et al. showing duplication only in 2 out of 22 NF1 CNVs, versus 20 deletions.66 As we found for NF1, Quemener et al. also found intragenic deletions are far more prevalent than duplica-tions in CFTR (MIM: 219700), BRCA1 (MIM: 604370),
LDLR (MIM: 143890), MLH1 (MIM: 609310), MSH2 (MIM: 120435), SERPING1 (MIM: 106100), and TSC2 (MIM: 613254) and further proposed a likely deletion/duplica-tion mutadeletion/duplica-tion ratio of between 2 and 3 in the human genome.32 Additionally, Girirajan et al. also found that
the prevalence of the deletion is higher than the preva-lence of duplications in 15,767 individuals assessed for developmental delay and associated phenotypes.4 This
discrepancy between deletions and duplications could be associated with the genomic-rearrangement mecha-nisms. Interchromosomal and interchromatid NAHR be-tween direct copies of LCRs contribute both to reciprocal deletion and duplication, while intrachromatid NAHR only leads to deletion.6,10Furthermore, non-recurrent re-arrangements, such as NHEJ in an intrachromatid event, also only generate deletions.32 In this context, the fre-quency of deletions is likely to be higher than that of duplications.
Regarding duplications, Newman et al. has found that the majority of the duplications are tandem in direct orien-tation.67Consistent with Newman et al., our cDNA and
genomic DNA results both indicate that all of these ten duplications are tandem in direct orientation at the original locus. These ten duplications comprise three NAHR (UAB-75, UAB-76, and UAB-83) and seven NHEJ or FoSTeS/MMBIR3 1 (UAB-77 to UAB-82 and UAB-84) events. Interchromosomal and interchromatid NAHR be-tween direct copies ofAlu elements most likely contributed to three duplications. The remaining seven duplications could be mediated by NHEJ. When a single double-strand break occurs on one strand, one of the broken ends can thereafter invade and replicate from the sister chromatid, resulting in duplication. Another scenario could be FoSTeS/MMBIR3 1. During DNA replication, the stalled strand disengages from the original replication fork and invades to another fork located upstream (backward invasion), which also would result in a duplication. We hypothesize that NHEJ and/or FoSTeS/MMBIR3 1 account for these seven duplications.
Detection of Low-Level Mosaic CNVs
We have used MLPA to detect or confirm (after cDNA-based fragment analysis and sequencing) all of theNF1 intra-genic CNVs. Four CNVs, originally identified through cDNA-based fragment analysis and sequencing, could not be detected based on MLPA (UAB-14, UAB-16, UAB-19, and UAB-73). Although MLPA is commonly used to detect CNVs, this method is not suitable for detecting mosaicism present in fewer than 30%–40% of the cells.68However,
detection of a low-level mosaicism has important implica-tions for genetic counseling. Failure to detect an existing pathogenicNF1 mosaic variant in parental DNA is associ-ated with a recurrence risk of up to 50% in the offspring. A sperm donor (UAB-37’s biological father), presenting with only four cafe´-au-lait macules, has passed NF1 to multiple offspring, prior to being genetically evaluated for gonosomal mosaicism.69 After comprehensive NF1
molecular evaluation with RT-PCR, MLPA, and aCGH, a deletion of the NF1 exons 15–29 was found in ~20% of sperm cells.70 This deletion was below the detection threshold of MLPA and aCGH in the blood cells, but was detected by RT-PCR.70 In this study, this deletion was
confirmed at the nucleotide level by breakpoint identifica-tion, showing the exact same breakpoints in the blood and sperm cells of the donor compared to the affected offspring, therefore confirming anNF1 gonosomal mosaic deletion in the donor.
MosaicNF1 CNVs are not rare and were previously esti-mated at 9.6% on the basis of a group of 146 individuals carrying an NF1 total-gene deletion.71 NF1 intragenic CNVs were found in 21 non-founder (familial) individ-uals in this study, family history was unknown in 14/87 individuals, and mosaicism was observed in 15/52 of the sporadic (founder) individuals (Table S1). Therefore, 28.8% of the individuals with sporadic NF1 due to an intragenic CNV were found to have mosaicism. Diag-nostic laboratories should realize the shortcomings of MLPA and/or aCGH as an approach to identifying mosaic CNVs in NF1 diagnostic testing. cDNA-based testing has a proven high sensitivity for detecting low-level mosaic intragenic deletions because primers spanning the deletion preferentially amplify the shorter RT-PCR fragments.
Conclusions
We demonstrate that the majority of theNF1 intragnenic CNVs are non-recurrent and mediated by DNA-replica-tion-based mechanisms. Furthermore, in addition to the loop of a 197-bp palindrome located in intron 40, four Alu elements located in introns 1, 2, 3, and 50 have now been identified as intragenic-rearrangement hotspots within NF1. This locus-centered study based on a large set of breakpoint identifications provides a mechanistic perspective for NF1 molecular etiology and might also serve as a paradigm for other genetic disorders involving genomic rearrangements.
Supplemental Data
Supplemental Data include two figures and six tables and can be found with this article online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ajhg.2015.06.002.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported through internal funds from the Medical Genomics Laboratory at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). We thank Alicia Gomes, the UAB Medical Genomics Laboratory certified genetic counselor, for helping with the insti-tutional-review-board protocols.
Received: March 4, 2015 Accepted: June 5, 2015 Published: July 16, 2015
Web Resources
The URLs for data presented herein are as follows:
Blast2, http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PAGE_TYPE¼Blast Search&PROG_DEF¼blastn&BLAST_PROG_DEF¼megaBlast&
BLAST_SPEC¼blast2seq
Leiden Open Variation Database,https://grenada.lumc.nl/LOVD2/ mendelian_genes/home.php?select_db¼NF1
OMIM,http://www.omim.org
Palindrome search, http://bioinfo.cs.technion.ac.il/projects/ Engel-Freund/new.html
Primer3 primer design program,http://primer3.ut.ee
QGRS Mapper,http://bioinformatics.ramapo.edu/QGRS/index.php
RepeatMasker,http://www.repeatmasker.org
UCSC Genome Browser,http://genome.ucsc.edu
References
1. Haraksingh, R.R., and Snyder, M.P. (2013). Impacts of varia-tion in the human genome on gene regulavaria-tion. J. Mol. Biol. 425, 3970–3977.
2. Simmons, A.D., Carvalho, C.M., and Lupski, J.R. (2012). What have studies of genomic disorders taught us about our genome? Methods Mol. Biol.838, 1–27.
3. Gonzaga-Jauregui, C., Lupski, J.R., and Gibbs, R.A. (2012). Human genome sequencing in health and disease. Annu. Rev. Med.63, 35–61.
4. Girirajan, S., Campbell, C.D., and Eichler, E.E. (2011). Human copy number variation and complex genetic disease. Annu. Rev. Genet.45, 203–226.
5. Stankiewicz, P., and Lupski, J.R. (2010). Structural variation in the human genome and its role in disease. Annu. Rev. Med. 61, 437–455.
6. Chen, J.M., Cooper, D.N., Fe´rec, C., Kehrer-Sawatzki, H., and Patrinos, G.P. (2010). Genomic rearrangements in inherited disease and cancer. Semin. Cancer Biol.20, 222–233. 7. Liu, P., Carvalho, C.M., Hastings, P.J., and Lupski, J.R. (2012).
Mechanisms for recurrent and complex human genomic rear-rangements. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.22, 211–220.
8. Zhang, F., Carvalho, C.M., and Lupski, J.R. (2009). Complex human chromosomal and genomic rearrangements. Trends Genet.25, 298–307.
9. Hastings, P.J., Lupski, J.R., Rosenberg, S.M., and Ira, G. (2009). Mechanisms of change in gene copy number. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 551–564.
10. Gu, W., Zhang, F., and Lupski, J.R. (2008). Mechanisms for hu-man genomic rearrangements. Pathogenetics1, 4.
11. Stankiewicz, P., and Lupski, J.R. (2002). Genome architecture, rearrangements and genomic disorders. Trends Genet. 18, 74–82.
12. Shaw, C.J., and Lupski, J.R. (2004). Implications of human genome architecture for rearrangement-based disorders: the genomic basis of disease. Hum. Mol. Genet.13, R57–R64. 13. Symington, L.S., and Gautier, J. (2011). Double-strand break
end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu. Rev. Genet. 45, 247–271.
14. Lieber, M.R. (2008). The mechanism of human nonhomolo-gous DNA end joining. J. Biol. Chem.283, 1–5.
15. Hastings, P.J., Ira, G., and Lupski, J.R. (2009). A microhomol-ogy-mediated break-induced replication model for the origin of human copy number variation. PLoS Genet.5, e1000327.
16. Lee, J.A., Carvalho, C.M., and Lupski, J.R. (2007). A DNA repli-cation mechanism for generating nonrecurrent rearrange-ments associated with genomic disorders. Cell 131, 1235– 1247.
17. Zhang, F., Khajavi, M., Connolly, A.M., Towne, C.F., Batish, S.D., and Lupski, J.R. (2009). The DNA replication FoSTeS/ MMBIR mechanism can generate genomic, genic and exonic complex rearrangements in humans. Nat. Genet.41, 849–853. 18. Hoeffding, L.K., Hansen, T., Ingason, A., Doung, L., Thygesen, J.H., Moller, R.S., Tommerup, N., Kirov, G., Rujescu, D., Larsen, L.A., et al. (2014). Sequence analysis of 17 NRXN1 de-letions. Am. J. Med. Genet. B Neuropsychiatr. Genet.165B, 52–61.
19. Chen, X., Shen, Y., Zhang, F., Chiang, C., Pillalamarri, V., Blu-menthal, I., Talkowski, M., Wu, B.L., and Gusella, J.F. (2013). Molecular analysis of a deletion hotspot in the NRXN1 region reveals the involvement of short inverted repeats in deletion CNVs. Am. J. Hum. Genet.92, 375–386.
20. Ankala, A., Kohn, J.N., Hegde, A., Meka, A., Ephrem, C.L., Askree, S.H., Bhide, S., and Hegde, M.R. (2012). Aberrant firing of replication origins potentially explains intragenic nonre-current rearrangements within genes, including the human DMD gene. Genome Res.22, 25–34.
21. Zhang, F., Seeman, P., Liu, P., Weterman, M.A., Gonzaga-Jaur-egui, C., Towne, C.F., Batish, S.D., De Vriendt, E., De Jonghe, P., Rautenstrauss, B., et al. (2010). Mechanisms for nonrecur-rent genomic rearrangements associated with CMT1A or HNPP: rare CNVs as a cause for missing heritability. Am. J. Hum. Genet.86, 892–903.
22. Yatsenko, S.A., Brundage, E.K., Roney, E.K., Cheung, S.W., Chi-nault, A.C., and Lupski, J.R. (2009). Molecular mechanisms for subtelomeric rearrangements associated with the 9q34.3 mi-crodeletion syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet.18, 1924–1936. 23. Vissers, L.E., Bhatt, S.S., Janssen, I.M., Xia, Z., Lalani, S.R.,
Pfundt, R., Derwinska, K., de Vries, B.B., Gilissen, C., Hois-chen, A., et al. (2009). Rare pathogenic microdeletions and tandem duplications are microhomology-mediated and stim-ulated by local genomic architecture. Hum. Mol. Genet.18, 3579–3593.
24. Nagamani, S.C., Zhang, F., Shchelochkov, O.A., Bi, W., Ou, Z., Scaglia, F., Probst, F.J., Shinawi, M., Eng, C., Hunter, J.V., et al. (2009). Microdeletions including YWHAE in the Miller-Dieker syndrome region on chromosome 17p13.3 result in facial dys-morphisms, growth restriction, and cognitive impairment. J. Med. Genet.46, 825–833.
25. Chanda, B., Asai-Coakwell, M., Ye, M., Mungall, A.J., Barrow, M., Dobyns, W.B., Behesti, H., Sowden, J.C., Carter, N.P., Wal-ter, M.A., and Lehmann, O.J. (2008). A novel mechanistic spectrum underlies glaucoma-associated chromosome 6p25 copy number variation. Hum. Mol. Genet.17, 3446–3458. 26. Gualandi, F., Rimessi, P., Trabanelli, C., Spitali, P., Neri, M.,
Pa-tarnello, T., Angelini, C., Yau, S.C., Abbs, S., Muntoni, F., et al. (2006). Intronic breakpoint definition and transcription analysis in DMD/BMD patients with deletion/duplication at the 50mutation hot spot of the dystrophin gene. Gene370, 26–33.
27. Toffolatti, L., Cardazzo, B., Nobile, C., Danieli, G.A., Gualandi, F., Muntoni, F., Abbs, S., Zanetti, P., Angelini, C., Ferlini, A., et al. (2002). Investigating the mechanism of chromosomal deletion: characterization of 39 deletion breakpoints in in-trons 47 and 48 of the human dystrophin gene. Genomics 80, 523–530.
28. Nobile, C., Toffolatti, L., Rizzi, F., Simionati, B., Nigro, V., Car-dazzo, B., Patarnello, T., Valle, G., and Danieli, G.A. (2002). Analysis of 22 deletion breakpoints in dystrophin intron 49. Hum. Genet.110, 418–421.
29. Inoue, K., Osaka, H., Thurston, V.C., Clarke, J.T., Yoneyama, A., Rosenbarker, L., Bird, T.D., Hodes, M.E., Shaffer, L.G., and Lupski, J.R. (2002). Genomic rearrangements resulting in PLP1 deletion occur by nonhomologous end joining and cause different dysmyelinating phenotypes in males and females. Am. J. Hum. Genet.71, 838–853.
30. Verdin, H., D’haene, B., Beysen, D., Novikova, Y., Menten, B., Sante, T., Lapunzina, P., Nevado, J., Carvalho, C.M., Lupski, J.R., and De Baere, E. (2013). Microhomology-mediated mech-anisms underlie non-recurrent disease-causing microdeletions of the FOXL2 gene or its regulatory domain. PLoS Genet.9, e1003358.
31. Carvalho, C.M., Pehlivan, D., Ramocki, M.B., Fang, P., Alleva, B., Franco, L.M., Belmont, J.W., Hastings, P.J., and Lupski, J.R. (2013). Replicative mechanisms for CNV formation are error prone. Nat. Genet.45, 1319–1326.
32. Quemener, S., Chen, J.M., Chuzhanova, N., Be´nech, C., Casals, T., Macek, M., Jr., Bienvenu, T., McDevitt, T., Farrell, P.M., Loumi, O., et al. (2010). Complete ascertainment of intragenic copy number mutations (CNMs) in the CFTR gene and its implications for CNM formation at other auto-somal loci. Hum. Mutat.31, 421–428.
33. Franke, G., Bausch, B., Hoffmann, M.M., Cybulla, M., Wil-helm, C., Kohlhase, J., Scherer, G., and Neumann, H.P. (2009). Alu-Alu recombination underlies the vast majority of large VHL germline deletions: Molecular characterization and genotype-phenotype correlations in VHL patients. Hum. Mutat.30, 776–786.
34. Boone, P.M., Yuan, B., Campbell, I.M., Scull, J.C., Withers, M.A., Baggett, B.C., Beck, C.R., Shaw, C.J., Stankiewicz, P., Moretti, P., et al. (2014). The Alu-rich genomic architecture of SPAST predisposes to diverse and functionally distinct dis-ease-associated CNV alleles. Am. J. Hum. Genet.95, 143–161. 35. Lammert, M., Friedman, J.M., Kluwe, L., and Mautner, V.F. (2005). Prevalence of neurofibromatosis 1 in German children at elementary school enrollment. Arch. Dermatol.141, 71–74. 36. Rasmussen, S.A., and Friedman, J.M. (2000). NF1 gene and
neurofibromatosis 1. Am. J. Epidemiol.151, 33–40.
37. Wimmer, K., Yao, S., Claes, K., Kehrer-Sawatzki, H., Tinschert, S., De Raedt, T., Legius, E., Callens, T., Beiglbo¨ck, H., Maertens, O., and Messiaen, L. (2006). Spectrum of single- and multiexon NF1 copy number changes in a cohort of 1,100
unselected NF1 patients. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 45,
265–276.
38. Orzan, F., Stroppi, M., Venturin, M., Valero, M.C., Herna´ndez, C., and Riva, P. (2008). Breakpoint characterization of a novel NF1 multiexonic deletion: a case showing expression of the mutated allele. Neurogenetics9, 95–100.
39. La´zaro, C., Gaona, A., Lynch, M., Kruyer, H., Ravella, A., and Estivill, X. (1995). Molecular characterization of the break-points of a 12-kb deletion in the NF1 gene in a family showing germ-line mosaicism. Am. J. Hum. Genet.57, 1044–1049. 40. Kaufmann, D. (2008). Neurofibromatoses (Basel: Karger). 41. Hsiao, M.C., Piotrowski, A., Alexander, J., Callens, T., Fu, C.,
Mikhail, F.M., Claes, K.B., and Messiaen, L. (2014). Palin-drome-mediated and replication-dependent pathogenic struc-tural rearrangements within the NF1 gene. Hum. Mutat.35, 891–898.
42. Wimmer, K., Callens, T., Wernstedt, A., and Messiaen, L. (2011). The NF1 gene contains hotspots for L1 endonu-clease-dependent de novo insertion. PLoS Genet.7, e1002371. 43. Boyer, A.S., Grgurevic, S., Cazaux, C., and Hoffmann, J.S. (2013). The human specialized DNA polymerases and non-B DNA: vital relationships to preserve genome integrity. J. Mol. Biol.425, 4767–4781.
44. Zhao, J., Bacolla, A., Wang, G., and Vasquez, K.M. (2010). Non-B DNA structure-induced genetic instability and evolu-tion. Cell. Mol. Life Sci.67, 43–62.
45. Bacolla, A., and Wells, R.D. (2009). Non-B DNA conformations as determinants of mutagenesis and human disease. Mol. Car-cinog.48, 273–285.
46. Lewis, S.M., Chen, S., Strathern, J.N., and Rattray, A.J. (2005). New approaches to the analysis of palindromic sequences from the human genome: evolution and polymorphism of an intronic site at the NF1 locus. Nucleic Acids Res.33, e186. 47. Inagaki, H., Ohye, T., Kogo, H., Yamada, K., Kowa, H., Shaikh, T.H., Emanuel, B.S., and Kurahashi, H. (2005). Palindromic AT-rich repeat in the NF1 gene is hypervariable in humans and evolutionarily conserved in primates. Hum. Mutat.26, 332–342.
48. Kurahashi, H., Shaikh, T., Takata, M., Toda, T., and Emanuel, B.S. (2003). The constitutional t(17;22): another translocation mediated by palindromic AT-rich repeats. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 733–738.
49. Kehrer-Sawatzki, H., Ha¨ussler, J., Krone, W., Bode, H., Jenne, D.E., Mehnert, K.U., Tu¨mmers, U., and Assum, G. (1997). The second case of a t(17;22) in a family with neurofibroma-tosis type 1: sequence analysis of the breakpoint regions. Hum. Genet.99, 237–247.
50. Liu, P., Lacaria, M., Zhang, F., Withers, M., Hastings, P.J., and Lupski, J.R. (2011). Frequency of nonallelic homologous recombination is correlated with length of homology: evi-dence that ectopic synapsis precedes ectopic crossing-over. Am. J. Hum. Genet.89, 580–588.
51. Shaw, C.J., and Lupski, J.R. (2005). Non-recurrent 17p11.2 de-letions are generated by homologous and non-homologous mechanisms. Hum. Genet.116, 1–7.
52. Venturin, M., Gervasini, C., Orzan, F., Bentivegna, A., Cor-rado, L., Colapietro, P., Friso, A., Tenconi, R., Upadhyaya, M., Larizza, L., and Riva, P. (2004). Evidence for non-homolo-gous end joining and non-allelic homolonon-homolo-gous recombination in atypical NF1 microdeletions. Hum. Genet.115, 69–80. 53. Chen, J.M., Chuzhanova, N., Stenson, P.D., Fe´rec, C., and
Cooper, D.N. (2005). Meta-analysis of gross insertions causing human genetic disease: novel mutational mechanisms and the role of replication slippage. Hum. Mutat.25, 207–221. 54. Chen, J.M., Chuzhanova, N., Stenson, P.D., Fe´rec, C., and
Cooper, D.N. (2005). Intrachromosomal serial replication slip-page in trans gives rise to diverse genomic rearrangements involving inversions. Hum. Mutat.26, 362–373.
55. Chen, J.M., Chuzhanova, N., Stenson, P.D., Fe´rec, C., and Cooper, D.N. (2005). Complex gene rearrangements caused by serial replication slippage. Hum. Mutat.26, 125–134. 56. Ottaviani, D., LeCain, M., and Sheer, D. (2014). The role
of microhomology in genomic structural variation. Trends Genet.30, 85–94.
57. Savage, J.R. (1993). Interchange and intra-nuclear architec-ture. Environ. Mol. Mutagen.22, 234–244.
58. Oshima, J., Magner, D.B., Lee, J.A., Breman, A.M., Schmitt, E.S., White, L.D., Crowe, C.A., Merrill, M., Jayakar, P.,
Rajadhyaksha, A., et al. (2009). Regional genomic instability predisposes to complex dystrophin gene rearrangements. Hum. Genet.126, 411–423.
59. Nobile, C., Galvagni, F., Marchi, J., Roberts, R., and Vitiello, L. (1995). Genomic organization of the human dystrophin gene across the major deletion hot spot and the 30 region. Geno-mics28, 97–100.
60. Oudet, C., Hanauer, A., Clemens, P., Caskey, T., and Mandel, J.L. (1992). Two hot spots of recombination in the DMD gene correlate with the deletion prone regions. Hum. Mol. Genet.1, 599–603.
61. Den Dunnen, J.T., Grootscholten, P.M., Bakker, E., Blonden, L.A., Ginjaar, H.B., Wapenaar, M.C., van Paassen, H.M., van Broeckhoven, C., Pearson, P.L., and van Ommen, G.J. (1989). Topography of the Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) gene: FIGE and cDNA analysis of 194 cases reveals 115 deletions and 13 duplications. Am. J. Hum. Genet.45, 835–847.
62. Berezney, R., Dubey, D.D., and Huberman, J.A. (2000). Hetero-geneity of eukaryotic replicons, replicon clusters, and replica-tion foci. Chromosoma108, 471–484.
63. Venter, J.C., Adams, M.D., Myers, E.W., Li, P.W., Mural, R.J., Sutton, G.G., Smith, H.O., Yandell, M., Evans, C.A., Holt, R.A., et al. (2001). The sequence of the human genome. Science291, 1304–1351.
64. Zvereff, V., Yao, S., Ramsey, J., Mikhail, F.M., Vijzelaar, R., and Messiaen, L. (2010). Identification of PKHD1 multiexon deletions using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplifi-cation and quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomarkers.14, 505–510.
65. Sellner, L.N., and Taylor, G.R. (2004). MLPA and MAPH: new techniques for detection of gene deletions. Hum. Mutat.23, 413–419.
66. Imbard, A., Pasmant, E., Sabbagh, A., Luscan, A., Soares, M., Goussard, P., Blanche, H., Laurendeau, I., Ferkal, S., Vidaud, M., et al. (2015). NF1 single and multi-exons copy number variations in neurofibromatosis type 1. J. Hum. Genet. 60, 221–224.
67. Newman, S., Hermetz, K.E., Weckselblatt, B., and Rudd, M.K. (2015). Next-generation sequencing of duplication CNVs reveals that most are tandem and some create fusion genes at breakpoints. Am. J. Hum. Genet.96, 208–220.
68. van Veghel-Plandsoen, M.M., Wouters, C.H., Kromosoeto, J.N., den Ridder-Klu¨nnen, M.C., Halley, D.J., and van den Ou-weland, A.M. (2011). Multiplex ligation-depending probe amplification is not suitable for detection of low-grade mosa-icism. Eur. J. Hum. Genet.19, 1009–1012.
69. Hansen, A. (2012). Danish sperm donor passed neurofibroma-tosis on to five children. BMJ345, e6570.
70. Callum, P., Messiaen, L.M., Bower, P.V., Skovby, F., Iger, J., Timshel, S., Sims, C.A., and Falk, R.E. (2012). Gonosomal mosaicism for an NF1 deletion in a sperm donor: evidence of the need for coordinated, long-term communication of health information among relevant parties. Hum. Reprod. 27, 1223–1226.
71. Messiaen, L., Vogt, J., Bengesser, K., Fu, C., Mikhail, F., Serra, E., Garcia-Linares, C., Cooper, D.N., Lazaro, C., and Kehrer-Sawatzki, H. (2011). Mosaic type-1 NF1 microdeletions as a cause of both generalized and segmental neurofibromatosis type-1 (NF1). Hum. Mutat.32, 213–219.