Blog
Cite
Save
Email
Print
ShareScienceDaily (Nov. 9, 2007) — The debate over the validity of genomic rearrangement “hotspots” has its most recent addition in a new theory put forth by researchers at the University of California San Diego. The study, published on November 9 in PLoS Computational Biology, holds that there are indeed rearrangement hotspots in the human genome.
Doctors Max Alekseyev and Pavel Pevzner developed a theory for analyzing complex rearrangements (including transpositions) which demonstrates that even if transpositions were a dominant evolutionary force, there are still rearrangement hotspots in mammalian genomes.
In 1970 the random breakage model (RBM) was proposed by Susumo Ohno, and later formalized by Nadeau and Taylor in 1984. This model postulates that rearrangements are “random,” and thus there are no rearrangement hotspots in mammalian genomes. Biologists largely embraced the model as it held such predictive powers.
However, in 2003 the model was refuted by Pevzner and Tesler, who suggested an alternative fragile breakage model (FBM) of chromosome evolution. FBM implies that the human genome is a mosaic of solid regions with low propensity for rearrangements and fragile regions where rearrangement hotspots reside. The rebuttal of RBM resulted in a rebuttal of the rebuttal, and a scientific divide was begun.
Most recent studies support the existence of rearrangement hotspots, but some researchers still uphold the RBM model. This study represents a major advance in the debate.
CITATION: Alekseyev MA, Pevzner PA (2007) Are there rearrangement hotspots in the human genome? PLoS Comput Biol 3(11): e209. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030209 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030209)
Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:
Other bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Public Library of Science.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.
more 
