Quantifying negative selection on synonymous variants.

IF 3.3 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY HGG Advances Pub Date : 2024-04-11 Epub Date: 2024-01-08 DOI:10.1016/j.xhgg.2024.100262
Mikhail Gudkov, Loïc Thibaut, Eleni Giannoulatou
{"title":"Quantifying negative selection on synonymous variants.","authors":"Mikhail Gudkov, Loïc Thibaut, Eleni Giannoulatou","doi":"10.1016/j.xhgg.2024.100262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Widespread adoption of DNA sequencing has resulted in large numbers of genetic variants, whose contribution to disease is not easily determined. Although many types of variation are known to disrupt cellular processes in predictable ways, for some categories of variants, the effects may not be directly detectable. A particular example is synonymous variants, that is, those single-nucleotide variants that create a codon substitution, such that the produced amino acid sequence is unaffected. Contrary to the original theory suggesting that synonymous variants are benign, there is a growing volume of research showing that, despite their \"silent\" mechanism of action, some synonymous variation may be deleterious. Here, we studied the extent of the negative selective pressure acting on different classes of synonymous variants by analyzing the relative enrichment of synonymous singleton variants in the human exomes provided by gnomAD. Using a modification of the mutability-adjusted proportion of singletons (MAPS) metric as a measure of purifying selection, we found that some classes of synonymous variants are subject to stronger negative selection than others. For instance, variants that reduce codon optimality undergo stronger selection than optimality-increasing variants. Besides, selection affects synonymous variants implicated in splice-site-loss or splice-site-gain events. To understand what drives this negative selection, we tested a number of predictors in the aim to explain the variability in the selection scores. Our findings provide insights into the effects of synonymous variants at the population level, highlighting the specifics of the role that these variants play in health and disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":34530,"journal":{"name":"HGG Advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10835449/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HGG Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xhgg.2024.100262","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Widespread adoption of DNA sequencing has resulted in large numbers of genetic variants, whose contribution to disease is not easily determined. Although many types of variation are known to disrupt cellular processes in predictable ways, for some categories of variants, the effects may not be directly detectable. A particular example is synonymous variants, that is, those single-nucleotide variants that create a codon substitution, such that the produced amino acid sequence is unaffected. Contrary to the original theory suggesting that synonymous variants are benign, there is a growing volume of research showing that, despite their "silent" mechanism of action, some synonymous variation may be deleterious. Here, we studied the extent of the negative selective pressure acting on different classes of synonymous variants by analyzing the relative enrichment of synonymous singleton variants in the human exomes provided by gnomAD. Using a modification of the mutability-adjusted proportion of singletons (MAPS) metric as a measure of purifying selection, we found that some classes of synonymous variants are subject to stronger negative selection than others. For instance, variants that reduce codon optimality undergo stronger selection than optimality-increasing variants. Besides, selection affects synonymous variants implicated in splice-site-loss or splice-site-gain events. To understand what drives this negative selection, we tested a number of predictors in the aim to explain the variability in the selection scores. Our findings provide insights into the effects of synonymous variants at the population level, highlighting the specifics of the role that these variants play in health and disease.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
量化同义变体的负选择。
DNA 测序技术的广泛应用产生了大量基因变异,而这些变异对疾病的影响却不易确定。虽然已知许多类型的变异会以可预测的方式破坏细胞过程,但对于某些类别的变异,其影响可能无法直接检测到。一个特别的例子是同义变异,即那些产生密码子置换的单核苷酸变异,其产生的氨基酸序列不受影响。与最初认为同义变异是良性的理论相反,越来越多的研究表明,尽管同义变异的作用机制是 "无声 "的,但有些同义变异可能是有害的。在这里,我们通过分析 gnomAD 提供的人类外显子组中同义单子变异的相对富集程度,研究了作用于不同类别同义变异的负选择压力的程度。使用变异性调整的单子比例(MAPS)指标作为纯化选择的衡量标准,我们发现某些类别的同义变异比其他变异受到更强的负选择。例如,降低密码子最优性的变体比提高最优性的变体受到更强的选择。此外,选择也会影响剪接位点丢失或剪接位点增益事件中的同义变异。为了了解这种负选择的驱动因素,我们测试了一些预测因子,旨在解释选择得分的变化。我们的研究结果让人们深入了解了同义变异在群体水平上的影响,突出了这些变异在健康和疾病中所起作用的特殊性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
HGG Advances
HGG Advances Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Molecular Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
69
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Joint genotype and ancestry analysis identify novel loci associated with atopic dermatitis in African American population. Investigation of cryptic JAG1 splice variants as a cause of Alagille syndrome and performance evaluation of splice predictor tools. Dominantly acting variants in vacuolar ATPase subunits impair lysosomal/autophagolysosome function causing a multisystemic disorder with neurocognitive impairment and multiple congenital anomalies. Extensive co-regulation of neighbouring genes complicates the use of eQTLs in target gene prioritisation. Enhancing Personalized Gene Expression Prediction From DNA Sequences Using Genomic Foundation Models.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1