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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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