Genomic Rearrangements: Mutational Mechanisms


Genomic rearrangements involve gross alterations of chromosomes or large chromosomal regions and can take the form of deletions, duplications, insertions, inversions or translocations. The characterisation of a considerable number of rearrangement breakpoints has now been accomplished at the nucleotide sequence level, thereby providing an invaluable resource for the detailed study of the mutational mechanisms which underlie genomic recombination events. At least five categories of mutational mechanism are known to give rise to genomic rearrangements: (i) homologous recombination including nonallelic homologous recombination (NAHR), gene conversion, single strand annealing (SSA) and break‐induced replication (BIR); (ii) nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ); (iii) microhomology‐mediated replication‐dependent recombination (MMRDR); (iv) long interspersed element 1 (LINE‐1 or L1)‐mediated retrotransposition and (v) telomere healing. We compare and contrast the hallmark characteristics of the first three mutational mechanisms and discuss the recent developments with respect to the ratio of deletions to duplications in vivo.

Key Concepts:

  • Genomic rearrangements refer to changes in the genetic linkage relationship of discrete chromosomal fragments, involving deletions, duplications, insertions, inversions or translocations.

  • At least five categories of mutational mechanism can give rise to genomic rearrangements: homologous recombination, nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ), microhomology‐mediated replication‐dependent recombination (MMRDR), long interspersed element 1 (LINE‐1 or L1)‐mediated retrotransposition, and telomere healing.

  • Homologous recombination, one of the major pathways for the repair of double‐strand breaks, is mediated through sequences which exhibit considerable homology (generally >200 bp) that presumably serves to stabilise chromosomal mispairing.

  • Homologous recombination can be further subdivided into four pathways, namely, nonallelic homologous recombination (NAHR), gene conversion, break‐induced replication (BIR) and single‐strand annealing (SSA).

  • NHEJ involves simple ligation of any two broken DNA ends together. It is the most prominent DNA repair mechanism because it can occur at any time during the cell cycle and does not require a homologous sequence.

  • Replication‐based models such as serial replication slippage and microhomology‐mediated BIR have been increasingly used to account for the generation of gross genomic rearrangements.

  • The term ‘MMRDR’ was thought to best define the hallmark characteristics of the aforementioned replication‐based mutational mechanisms as compared with homologous recombination and NHEJ.

  • A deletion:duplication ratio of between 2 and 3 is likely to represent the best estimate of the relative occurrence of deletion and duplication copy number mutations in vivo.

Keywords: break‐induced replication; copy number variation; gene conversion; genomic rearrangements; NAHR; NHEJ; nonallelic homologous recombination; nonhomologous end joining; microhomology‐mediated replication‐dependent recombination; serial replication slippage

Figure 1.

Mutational models of homologous recombination. In the models of gene conversion, NAHR (nonallelic homologous recombination) and (break‐induced replication), the invading strand invariably binds to a homologous sequence. In the model of (single‐strand annealing), the black bars indicate the direct repeats that flank a DSB (double‐strand break). In the dissolution model of gene conversion, the two facing horizontal purple arrows indicate convergent branch migration. In the double (Holliday junction) cleavage model of gene conversion, the four horizontal green arrows indicate the orientation of resolution. In the double HJ cleavage model of NAHR, the double HJs can be cleaved as indicated by the green arrows or by the red arrows. In the first pathway of BIR, the HJ is resolved as indicated by the facing horizontal green arrows. See text for details. D‐loop, displacement loop; RF, replication fork and SDSA, synthesis‐dependent strand annealing. Reproduced from Chen et al. .

Figure 2.

Types of genomic rearrangements resulting from NAHR and BIR. Arrowed bars indicate duplicated sequences or low copy repeats and their relative orientations. The direction of BIR is indicated by a curved arrow. In BIR, the resulting rearranged chromosomes are within ovals. Reproduced from Chen et al. .

Figure 3.

Examples of genomic rearrangements resulting from NHEJ. Ends ligated are indicated by dotted lines. In (b) and (c), the final outcome, unlike NAHR, is not necessarily reciprocal. In theory, the flexibility of NHEJ implies an unlimited number of different types of genomic rearrangement. IHC, interhomologous chromosomes and INHC, inter‐nonhomologous chromosomes. Reproduced from Chen et al. .



Babushok DV and Kazazian HH (2007) Progress in understanding the biology of the human mutagen LINE‐1. Human Mutation 28: 527–539.

Belancio VP, Deininger PL and Roy‐Engel AM (2009) LINE dancing in the human genome: transposable elements and disease. Genome Medicine 1: 97.

Buysse K, Antonacci F, Callewaert B et al. (2009) Unusual 8p inverted duplication deletion with telomere capture from 8q. European Journal of Medical Genetics 52: 31–36.

Chauvin A, Chen JM, Quemener S et al. (2009) Elucidation of the complex structure and origin of the human trypsinogen locus triplication. Human Molecular Genetics 18: 3605–3014.

Chen JM, Chuzhanova N, Stenson PD, Férec C and Cooper DN (2005a) Meta‐analysis of gross insertions causing human genetic disease: novel mutational mechanisms and the role of replication slippage. Human Mutation 25: 207–221.

Chen JM, Chuzhanova N, Stenson PD, Férec C and Cooper DN (2005b) Complex gene rearrangements caused by serial replication slippage. Human Mutation 26: 125–134.

Chen JM, Chuzhanova N, Stenson PD, Férec C and Cooper DN (2005c) Intrachromosomal serial replication slippage in trans gives rise to diverse genomic rearrangements involving inversions. Human Mutation 26: 362–373.

Chen JM, Cooper DN, Chuzhanova N, Férec C and Patrinos GP (2007) Gene conversion: mechanisms, evolution and human disease. Nature Reviews. Genetics 8: 762–775.

Chen JM, Cooper DN, Férec C, Kehrer‐Sawatzki H and Patrinos GP (2010) Genomic rearrangements in inherited disease and cancer. Seminars in Cancer Biology 20: 222–233.

Chen JM, Férec C and Cooper DN (2009) Closely spaced multiple mutations as potential signatures of transient hypermutability in human genes. Human Mutation 30: 1435–1448.

Chen JM, Stenson PD, Cooper DN and Férec C (2005d) A systematic analysis of LINE‐1 endonuclease‐dependent retrotranspositional events causing human genetic disease. Human Genetics 117: 411–427.

Gitschier J (1988) Maternal duplication associated with gene deletion in sporadic hemophilia. American Journal of Human Genetics 43: 274–279.

Gu W, Zhang F and Lupski JR (2008) Mechanisms for human genomic rearrangements. Pathogenetics 1: 4.

Hastings PJ, Ira G and Lupski JR (2009a) A microhomology‐mediated break‐induced replication model for the origin of human copy number variation. PLoS Genetics 5: e1000327.

Hastings PJ, Lupski JR, Rosenberg SM and Ira G (2009b) Mechanisms of change in gene copy number. Nature Reviews. Genetics 10: 551–564.

Haverfield EV, Whited AJ, Petras KS, Dobyns WB and Das S (2009) Intragenic deletions and duplications of the LIS1 and DCX genes: a major disease‐causing mechanism in lissencephaly and subcortical band heterotopia. European Journal of Human Genetics 17: 911–918.

Holliday R (1964) A mechanism for gene conversion in fungi. Genetics Research 5: 282–304.

Iafrate AJ, Feuk L, Rivera MN et al. (2004) Detection of large‐scale variation in the human genome. Nature Genetics 36: 949–951.

Ip SC, Rass U, Blanco MG et al. (2008) Identification of Holliday junction resolvases from humans and yeast. Nature 456: 357–361.

Koszul R, Caburet S, Dujon B and Fischer G (2004) Eucaryotic genome evolution through the spontaneous duplication of large chromosomal segments. EMBO Journal 23: 234–243.

Lee C and Scherer SW (2010) The clinical context of copy number variation in the human genome. Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine 12: e8.

Lee JA, Carvalho CM and Lupski JR (2007) A DNA replication mechanism for generating nonrecurrent rearrangements associated with genomic disorders. Cell 131: 1235–1247.

Lieber MR (2008) The mechanism of human nonhomologous DNA end joining. Journal of Biological Chemistry 283: 1–5.

Lin C, Yang L, Tanasa B et al. (2009) Nuclear receptor‐induced chromosomal proximity and DNA breaks underlie specific translocations in cancer. Cell 139: 1069–1083.

Ma JL, Kim EM, Haber JE and Lee SE (2003) Yeast Mre11 and Rad1 proteins define a Ku‐independent mechanism to repair double‐strand breaks lacking overlapping end sequences. Molecular and Cellular Biology 23: 8820–8828.

Mani RS, Tomlins SA, Callahan K et al. (2009) Induced chromosomal proximity and gene fusions in prostate cancer. Science 326: 1230.

Masson E, Le Maréchal C, Chandak GR et al. (2008) Trypsinogen copy number mutations in patients with idiopathic chronic pancreatitis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 6: 82–88.

Mathas S and Misteli T (2009) The dangers of transcription. Cell 139: 1047–1049.

McClintock B (1951) Chromosome organization and genic expression. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 16: 13–47.

McEachern MJ and Haber JE (2006) Break‐induced replication and recombinational telomere elongation in yeast. Annual Review of Biochemistry 75: 111–135.

McVey M and Lee SE (2008) MMEJ repair of double‐strand breaks (director's cut): deleted sequences and alternative endings. Trends in Genetics 24: 529–538.

Meaburn KJ, Misteli T and Soutoglou E (2007) Spatial genome organization in the formation of chromosomal translocations. Seminars in Cancer Biology 17: 80–90.

Misteli T and Soutoglou E (2009) The emerging role of nuclear architecture in DNA repair and genome maintenance. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 10: 243–254.

Nikiforova MN, Stringer JR, Blough R et al. (2000) Proximity of chromosomal loci that participate in radiation‐induced rearrangements in human cells. Science 290: 138–141.

Padiath QS, Saigoh K, Schiffmann R et al. (2006) Lamin B1 duplications cause autosomal dominant leukodystrophy. Nature Genetics 38: 1114–1123.

Pardo B, Gomez‐Gonzalez B and Aguilera A (2009) DNA repair in mammalian cells: DNA double‐strand break repair: how to fix a broken relationship. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 66: 1039–1056.

Pennaneach V, Putnam CD and Kolodner RD (2006) Chromosome healing by de novo telomere addition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Molecular Microbiology 59: 1357–1368.

Quemener S, Chen JM, Chuzhanova N et al. (2010) Complete ascertainment of intragenic copy number mutations (CNMs) in the CFTR gene and its implications for CNM formation at other autosomal loci. Human Mutation 31: 421–428.

Redon R, Ishikawa S, Fitch KR et al. (2006) Global variation in copy number in the human genome. Nature 444: 444–454.

Roth DB, Chang XB and Wilson JH (1989) Comparison of filler DNA at immune, nonimmune, and oncogenic rearrangements suggests multiple mechanisms of formation. Molecular and Cellular Biology 9: 3049–3057.

Scherer SW, Lee C, Birney E et al. (2007) Challenges and standards in integrating surveys of structural variation. Nature Genetics 39: S7–S15.

Sebat J, Lakshmi B, Troge J et al. (2004) Large‐scale copy number polymorphism in the human genome. Science 305: 525–528.

Sheen CR, Jewell UR, Morris CM et al. (2007) Double complex mutations involving F8 and FUNDC2 caused by distinct break‐induced replication. Human Mutation 28: 1198–1206.

Smith CE, Llorente B and Symington LS (2007) Template switching during break‐induced replication. Nature 447: 102–105.

Soutoglou E, Dorn JF, Sengupta K et al. (2007) Positional stability of single double‐strand breaks in mammalian cells. Nature Cell Biology 9: 675–682.

Stankiewicz P and Lupski JR (2010) Structural variation in the human genome and its role in disease. Annual Review of Medicine 61: 437–455.

Stenson PD, Mort M, Ball EV et al. (2009) The Human Gene Mutation Database: 2008 update. Genome Medicine 1: 13.

Turner DJ, Miretti M, Rajan D et al. (2008) Germline rates of de novo meiotic deletions and duplications causing several genomic disorders. Nature Genetics 40: 90–95.

Yan CT, Boboila C, Souza EK et al. (2007) IgH class switching and translocations use a robust non‐classical end‐joining pathway. Nature 449: 478–482.

Yatsenko SA, Brundage EK, Roney EK et al. (2009) Molecular mechanisms for subtelomeric rearrangements associated with the 9q34.3 microdeletion syndrome. Human Molecular Genetics 18: 1924–1936.

Further Reading

1000 Genomes Project Consortium, Durbin RM, Abecasis GR et al. (2010) A map of human genome variation from population‐scale sequencing. Nature 467: 1061–1073.

Conrad DF, Pinto D, Redon R et al. (2010) Origins and functional impact of copy number variation in the human genome. Nature 464: 704–712.

Konkel MK and Batzer MA (2010) A mobile threat to genome stability: the impact of non‐LTR retrotransposons upon the human genome. Seminars in Cancer Biology 20: 211–221.

Lieber MR (2010) The mechanism of double‐strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end‐joining pathway. Annual Review of Biochemistry 79: 181–211.

Liu Y and West SC (2004) Happy Hollidays: 40th anniversary of the Holliday junction. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 5: 937–944.

Pâques F and Haber JE (1999) Multiple pathways of recombination induced by double‐strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 63: 349–404.

Sudmant PH, Kitzman JO, Antonacci F et al. (2010) Diversity of human copy number variation and multicopy genes. Science 330: 641–646.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Chen, Jian‐Min(Feb 2011) Genomic Rearrangements: Mutational Mechanisms. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0022926]