Abstract

Chromosomal common fragile sites (CFSs) are unstable genomic regions that break under replication stress and are involved in structural variation. They frequently are sites of chromosomal rearrangements in cancer and of viral integration. However, CFSs are undercharacterized at the molecular level and thus difficult to predict computationally. Newly available genome-wide profiling studies provide us with an unprecedented opportunity to associate CFSs with features of their local genomic contexts. Here, we contrasted the genomic landscape of cytogenetically defined aphidicolin-induced CFSs (aCFSs) to that of nonfragile sites, using multiple logistic regression. We also analyzed aCFS breakage frequencies as a function of their genomic landscape, using standard multiple regression. We show that local genomic features are effective predictors both of regions harboring aCFSs (explaining ∼77% of the deviance in logistic regression models) and of aCFS breakage frequencies (explaining ∼45% of the variance in standard regression models). In our optimal models (having highest explanatory power), aCFSs are predominantly located in G-negative chromosomal bands and away from centromeres, are enriched in Alu repeats, and have high DNA flexibility. In alternative models, CpG island density, transcription start site density, H3K4me1 coverage, and mononucleotide microsatellite coverage are significant predictors. Also, aCFSs have high fragility when colocated with evolutionarily conserved chromosomal breakpoints. Our models are predictive of the fragility of aCFSs mapped at a higher resolution. Importantly, the genomic features we identified here as significant predictors of fragility allow us to draw valuable inferences on the molecular mechanisms underlying aCFSs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)993-1005
Number of pages13
JournalGenome Research
Volume22
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2012

Fingerprint

Aphidicolin
Chromosomal Instability
Human Genome
Genome
Logistic Models
Virus Integration
CpG Islands
Centromere
Transcription Initiation Site
Microsatellite Repeats
DNA

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Genetics
  • Genetics(clinical)

Cite this

@article{6976ec47d4e240dd8ec726dc0704b157,
title = "A genome-wide analysis of common fragile sites: What features determine chromosomal instability in the human genome?",
abstract = "Chromosomal common fragile sites (CFSs) are unstable genomic regions that break under replication stress and are involved in structural variation. They frequently are sites of chromosomal rearrangements in cancer and of viral integration. However, CFSs are undercharacterized at the molecular level and thus difficult to predict computationally. Newly available genome-wide profiling studies provide us with an unprecedented opportunity to associate CFSs with features of their local genomic contexts. Here, we contrasted the genomic landscape of cytogenetically defined aphidicolin-induced CFSs (aCFSs) to that of nonfragile sites, using multiple logistic regression. We also analyzed aCFS breakage frequencies as a function of their genomic landscape, using standard multiple regression. We show that local genomic features are effective predictors both of regions harboring aCFSs (explaining ∼77{\%} of the deviance in logistic regression models) and of aCFS breakage frequencies (explaining ∼45{\%} of the variance in standard regression models). In our optimal models (having highest explanatory power), aCFSs are predominantly located in G-negative chromosomal bands and away from centromeres, are enriched in Alu repeats, and have high DNA flexibility. In alternative models, CpG island density, transcription start site density, H3K4me1 coverage, and mononucleotide microsatellite coverage are significant predictors. Also, aCFSs have high fragility when colocated with evolutionarily conserved chromosomal breakpoints. Our models are predictive of the fragility of aCFSs mapped at a higher resolution. Importantly, the genomic features we identified here as significant predictors of fragility allow us to draw valuable inferences on the molecular mechanisms underlying aCFSs.",
author = "Arkarachai Fungtammasan and Erin Walsh and Francesca Chiaromonte and Kristin Eckert and Makova, {Kateryna Dmytrivna}",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1101/gr.134395.111",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "993--1005",
journal = "Genome Research",
issn = "1088-9051",
publisher = "Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press",
number = "6",

}

A genome-wide analysis of common fragile sites : What features determine chromosomal instability in the human genome? / Fungtammasan, Arkarachai; Walsh, Erin; Chiaromonte, Francesca; Eckert, Kristin; Makova, Kateryna Dmytrivna.

In: Genome Research, Vol. 22, No. 6, 01.06.2012, p. 993-1005.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A genome-wide analysis of common fragile sites

T2 - What features determine chromosomal instability in the human genome?

AU - Fungtammasan, Arkarachai

AU - Walsh, Erin

AU - Chiaromonte, Francesca

AU - Eckert, Kristin

AU - Makova, Kateryna Dmytrivna

PY - 2012/6/1

Y1 - 2012/6/1

N2 - Chromosomal common fragile sites (CFSs) are unstable genomic regions that break under replication stress and are involved in structural variation. They frequently are sites of chromosomal rearrangements in cancer and of viral integration. However, CFSs are undercharacterized at the molecular level and thus difficult to predict computationally. Newly available genome-wide profiling studies provide us with an unprecedented opportunity to associate CFSs with features of their local genomic contexts. Here, we contrasted the genomic landscape of cytogenetically defined aphidicolin-induced CFSs (aCFSs) to that of nonfragile sites, using multiple logistic regression. We also analyzed aCFS breakage frequencies as a function of their genomic landscape, using standard multiple regression. We show that local genomic features are effective predictors both of regions harboring aCFSs (explaining ∼77% of the deviance in logistic regression models) and of aCFS breakage frequencies (explaining ∼45% of the variance in standard regression models). In our optimal models (having highest explanatory power), aCFSs are predominantly located in G-negative chromosomal bands and away from centromeres, are enriched in Alu repeats, and have high DNA flexibility. In alternative models, CpG island density, transcription start site density, H3K4me1 coverage, and mononucleotide microsatellite coverage are significant predictors. Also, aCFSs have high fragility when colocated with evolutionarily conserved chromosomal breakpoints. Our models are predictive of the fragility of aCFSs mapped at a higher resolution. Importantly, the genomic features we identified here as significant predictors of fragility allow us to draw valuable inferences on the molecular mechanisms underlying aCFSs.

AB - Chromosomal common fragile sites (CFSs) are unstable genomic regions that break under replication stress and are involved in structural variation. They frequently are sites of chromosomal rearrangements in cancer and of viral integration. However, CFSs are undercharacterized at the molecular level and thus difficult to predict computationally. Newly available genome-wide profiling studies provide us with an unprecedented opportunity to associate CFSs with features of their local genomic contexts. Here, we contrasted the genomic landscape of cytogenetically defined aphidicolin-induced CFSs (aCFSs) to that of nonfragile sites, using multiple logistic regression. We also analyzed aCFS breakage frequencies as a function of their genomic landscape, using standard multiple regression. We show that local genomic features are effective predictors both of regions harboring aCFSs (explaining ∼77% of the deviance in logistic regression models) and of aCFS breakage frequencies (explaining ∼45% of the variance in standard regression models). In our optimal models (having highest explanatory power), aCFSs are predominantly located in G-negative chromosomal bands and away from centromeres, are enriched in Alu repeats, and have high DNA flexibility. In alternative models, CpG island density, transcription start site density, H3K4me1 coverage, and mononucleotide microsatellite coverage are significant predictors. Also, aCFSs have high fragility when colocated with evolutionarily conserved chromosomal breakpoints. Our models are predictive of the fragility of aCFSs mapped at a higher resolution. Importantly, the genomic features we identified here as significant predictors of fragility allow us to draw valuable inferences on the molecular mechanisms underlying aCFSs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861883036&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861883036&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1101/gr.134395.111

DO - 10.1101/gr.134395.111

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 993

EP - 1005

JO - Genome Research

JF - Genome Research

SN - 1088-9051

IS - 6

ER -