Long-range regulation is a major driving force in maintaining genome integrity.
BACKGROUND
The availability of newly sequenced vertebrate genomes, along with more efficient and accurate alignment algorithms, have enabled the expansion of the field of comparative genomics. Large-scale genome rearrangement events modify the order of genes and non-coding conserved regions on chromosomes. While certain large genomic regions have remained intact over much of vertebrate evolution, others appear to be hotspots for genomic breakpoints. The cause of the non-uniformity of breakpoints that occurred during vertebrate evolution is poorly understood.


RESULTS
We describe a machine learning method to distinguish genomic regions where breakpoints would be expected to have deleterious effects (called breakpoint-refractory regions) from those where they are expected to be neutral (called breakpoint-susceptible regions). Our predictor is trained using breakpoints that took place along the human lineage since amniote divergence. Based on our predictions, refractory and susceptible regions have very distinctive features. Refractory regions are significantly enriched for conserved non-coding elements as well as for genes involved in development, whereas susceptible regions are enriched for housekeeping genes, likely to have simpler transcriptional regulation.


CONCLUSIONS
We postulate that long-range transcriptional regulation strongly influences chromosome break fixation. In many regions, the fitness cost of altering the spatial association between long-range regulatory regions and their target genes may be so high that rearrangements are not allowed. Consequently, only a limited, identifiable fraction of the genome is susceptible to genome rearrangements.
Mongin
Emmanuel
E
McGill Centre for Bioinformatics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. emmanuel.mongin@mail.mcgill.ca
Dewar
Ken
K
Blanchette
Mathieu
M
D000818:Animals; D001185:Artificial Intelligence; D002645:Chickens / Q000235:genetics; D019457:Chromosome Breakage; D002874:Chromosome Mapping / Q000379:methods; D055028:Comparative Genomic Hybridization; D019143:Evolution, Molecular; D005786:Gene Expression Regulation; D042822:Genomic Instability; D023281:Genomics / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D009893:Opossums / Q000235:genetics; D026801:Synteny
Nat Rev Genet. 2007 Mar;8(3):206-16
17304246
Cancer Lett. 2006 Jan 28;232(1):13-26
16236432
Genome Res. 2005 Jan;15(1):137-45
15590943
Hum Mol Genet. 2003 Jul 15;12(14):1725-35
12837695
BMC Genomics. 2008;9 Suppl 1:S25
18366615
Science. 2001 Feb 16;291(5507):1304-51
11181995
Genome Res. 2004 Jan;14(1):160-9
14707178
J Comput Biol. 2005 Jul-Aug;12(6):812-21
16108718
Nucleic Acids Res. 2007 Jan;35(Database issue):D610-7
17148474
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Sep 30;100(20):11188-9
14506293
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1984 Feb;81(3):814-8
6583681
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 2;103(18):6994-9
16636282
Genome Res. 2007 Dec;17(12):1797-808
17984227
Trends Genet. 2006 Jan;22(1):5-10
16290136
PLoS Comput Biol. 2006 Feb;2(2):e14
16501665
Science. 2005 Jul 22;309(5734):613-7
16040707
Genome Res. 2007 May;17(5):545-55
17387144
Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 Jul 1;36(Web Server issue):W341-6
18515841
Genome Res. 2007 Dec;17(12):1898-908
17989259
Genome Res. 2005 Aug;15(8):1034-50
16024819
Genome Res. 2003 Apr;13(4):579-88
12670999
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jun 24;100(13):7672-7
12810957
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 20;101(16):6062-7
15075390
Nature. 2004 Dec 9;432(7018):695-716
15592404
Annu Rev Genet. 2005;39:23-46
16285851
Nature. 2007 May 10;447(7141):167-77
17495919
Genome Biol. 2006;7(12):R115
17156441
Annu Rev Genet. 2007;41:169-92
17608616
Trends Genet. 2005 Dec;21(12):673-82
16242204
Genomics. 2005 Aug;86(2):172-81
15939571
Genome Res. 2002 Jun;12(6):996-1006
12045153
J Mol Evol. 1999 Aug;49(2):193-203
10441671
Bioessays. 2004 Nov;26(11):1217-24
15499588
Nat Genet. 2004 Sep;36(9):949-51
15286789
Genetics. 2006 May;173(1):419-34
16204214
Mol Genet Genomics. 2007 Nov;278(5):487-91
17851692