Cargando…
Differences in the number of de novo mutations between individuals are due to small family-specific effects and stochasticity
The number of de novo mutations (DNMs) in the human germline is correlated with parental age at conception, but this explains only part of the observed variation. We investigated whether there is a family-specific contribution to the number of DNMs in offspring. The analysis of DNMs in 111 dizygotic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8415378/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34301630 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.271809.120 |
_version_ | 1783747957460303872 |
---|---|
author | Goldmann, Jakob M. Hampstead, Juliet E. Wong, Wendy S.W. Wilfert, Amy B. Turner, Tychele N. Jonker, Marianne A. Bernier, Raphael Huynen, Martijn A. Eichler, Evan E. Veltman, Joris A. Maxwell, George L. Gilissen, Christian |
author_facet | Goldmann, Jakob M. Hampstead, Juliet E. Wong, Wendy S.W. Wilfert, Amy B. Turner, Tychele N. Jonker, Marianne A. Bernier, Raphael Huynen, Martijn A. Eichler, Evan E. Veltman, Joris A. Maxwell, George L. Gilissen, Christian |
author_sort | Goldmann, Jakob M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The number of de novo mutations (DNMs) in the human germline is correlated with parental age at conception, but this explains only part of the observed variation. We investigated whether there is a family-specific contribution to the number of DNMs in offspring. The analysis of DNMs in 111 dizygotic twin pairs did not identify a substantial family-specific contribution. This result was corroborated by comparing DNMs of 1669 siblings to those of age-matched unrelated offspring following correction for parental age. In addition, by modeling DNM data from 1714 multi-offspring families, we estimated that the family-specific contribution explains ∼5.2% of the variation in DNM number. Furthermore, we found no substantial difference between the observed number of DNMs and those predicted by a stochastic Poisson process. We conclude that there is a small family-specific contribution to DNM number and that stochasticity explains a large proportion of variation in DNM counts. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8415378 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84153782022-03-01 Differences in the number of de novo mutations between individuals are due to small family-specific effects and stochasticity Goldmann, Jakob M. Hampstead, Juliet E. Wong, Wendy S.W. Wilfert, Amy B. Turner, Tychele N. Jonker, Marianne A. Bernier, Raphael Huynen, Martijn A. Eichler, Evan E. Veltman, Joris A. Maxwell, George L. Gilissen, Christian Genome Res Research The number of de novo mutations (DNMs) in the human germline is correlated with parental age at conception, but this explains only part of the observed variation. We investigated whether there is a family-specific contribution to the number of DNMs in offspring. The analysis of DNMs in 111 dizygotic twin pairs did not identify a substantial family-specific contribution. This result was corroborated by comparing DNMs of 1669 siblings to those of age-matched unrelated offspring following correction for parental age. In addition, by modeling DNM data from 1714 multi-offspring families, we estimated that the family-specific contribution explains ∼5.2% of the variation in DNM number. Furthermore, we found no substantial difference between the observed number of DNMs and those predicted by a stochastic Poisson process. We conclude that there is a small family-specific contribution to DNM number and that stochasticity explains a large proportion of variation in DNM counts. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 2021-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8415378/ /pubmed/34301630 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.271809.120 Text en © 2021 Goldmann et al.; Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed exclusively by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press for the first six months after the full-issue publication date (see https://genome.cshlp.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml). After six months, it is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Goldmann, Jakob M. Hampstead, Juliet E. Wong, Wendy S.W. Wilfert, Amy B. Turner, Tychele N. Jonker, Marianne A. Bernier, Raphael Huynen, Martijn A. Eichler, Evan E. Veltman, Joris A. Maxwell, George L. Gilissen, Christian Differences in the number of de novo mutations between individuals are due to small family-specific effects and stochasticity |
title | Differences in the number of de novo mutations between individuals are due to small family-specific effects and stochasticity |
title_full | Differences in the number of de novo mutations between individuals are due to small family-specific effects and stochasticity |
title_fullStr | Differences in the number of de novo mutations between individuals are due to small family-specific effects and stochasticity |
title_full_unstemmed | Differences in the number of de novo mutations between individuals are due to small family-specific effects and stochasticity |
title_short | Differences in the number of de novo mutations between individuals are due to small family-specific effects and stochasticity |
title_sort | differences in the number of de novo mutations between individuals are due to small family-specific effects and stochasticity |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8415378/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34301630 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.271809.120 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT goldmannjakobm differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity AT hampsteadjuliete differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity AT wongwendysw differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity AT wilfertamyb differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity AT turnertychelen differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity AT jonkermariannea differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity AT bernierraphael differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity AT huynenmartijna differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity AT eichlerevane differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity AT veltmanjorisa differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity AT maxwellgeorgel differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity AT gilissenchristian differencesinthenumberofdenovomutationsbetweenindividualsareduetosmallfamilyspecificeffectsandstochasticity |