It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Genomic inversions come in various sizes. While long inversions are relatively easy to identify by aligning high-quality genome sequences, unambiguous identification of microinversions is more problematic. Here, using a set of extra stringent criteria to distinguish microinversions from other mutational events, we describe microinversions that occurred after the divergence of humans and chimpanzees. In total, we found 59 definite microinversions that range from 17 to 33 nucleotides in length. In majority of them, human genome sequences matched exactly the reverse-complemented chimpanzee genome sequences, implying that the inverted DNA segment was copied precisely. All these microinversions were flanked by perfect or nearly perfect inverted repeats pointing to their key role in their formation. Template switching at inverted repeats during DNA replication was previously discussed as a possible mechanism for the microinversion formation. However, many of definite microinversions found by us cannot be easily explained via template switching owing to the combination of the short length and imperfect nature of their flanking inverted repeats. We propose a novel, alternative mechanism that involves repair of a double-stranded break within the inverting segment via microhomology-mediated break-induced replication, which can consistently explain all definite microinversion events.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Information Transmission Problems (Kharkevich Institute), Moscow, Russia (GRID:grid.4886.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2192 9124)
2 University of Michigan, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Ann Arbor, USA (GRID:grid.214458.e) (ISNI:0000000086837370)
3 Tufts University, Department of Biology, Medford, USA (GRID:grid.429997.8) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7531)