Home
Up
Case 1 feedback
Case 1 Results

 

Index to page:

    Haplotype construction.

    How valid are the assumptions?

    Applying this information to ‘real-life’ carrier risk problems.

 

Haplotype construction

Haplotyping results are shown below:

A recombination is required to explain the results. This is most likely in individual II4 on the maternal chromosome between the markers A and B (as illustrated above). [Theoretically, it is not impossible that recombinations have occurred in both II2 and II3 instead of in II4, and that the haplotypes in I2 are 1,3,1,2 and 3,1,3,3 (A to D), but because this requires 2 unlikely events in the same interval, it is much less likely than the situation illustrated. In any case, the carrier risk calculation to II4 will be the same.]

 

The recombination position is between ‘A’ and ‘B’. But the position within this interval is unknown. At one extreme, it could be directly adjacent to ‘A’ – i.e. directly adjacent to the 5’ end of the gene. Consequently, there would be zero risk that II4 is a DMD carrier. At the other extreme, it could be directly adjacent to ‘B’. Consequently, II4 would share one third of the maternal DMD haplotype with her affected brother. We are concerned with risk here, so have to consider the most likely position, or average position. In the original question, we were advised to assume that both mutation positions and recombinations positions are random with respect to the coding sequence. Therefore, on average, the recombination position will cause one sixth of II4’s maternal haplotypes to be shared with her brother, II3.

 

But what is the position of the mutation? We don’t know of course. But what matters is its position with respect to the recombination. A common mistake is to assume that if the mutation lies 5’ to marker ‘B’ then II4 will be a carrier. So the question we need to ask is: What is the risk that the mutation lies 5’ to the recombination? This is straightforward to calculate where there is random distribution of mutations with respect to the coding sequence, as advised in the question. The carrier risk is the same as the proportion of shared haplotypes between II3 and II4, i.e. one sixth.

back to top of page


How valid are the assumptions of random recombination distribution and random mutation distribution?

 

Recombination distribution:
 

The dystrophin gene lies in a recombination hotspot. On average, 1cM (1% chance of recombination) equates to a physical distance of around 1Mb. The dystrophin gene spans around 2.4Mb but the chance of recombination within this interval is around 10% at each meiosis.
 

Furthermore, recombination is non-random over this interval, with recombination hotspots coinciding very approximately with the deletion/duplication hotspots. When one considers the 5’ third of the dystrophin gene, the recombination distribution is biased towards the 3’ end of this interval, so it is more likely that the recombination is positioned closer to marker ‘B’ than marker ‘A’. However, this is an inexact science!
 

Mutation distribution:
 

Data on mutation distribution are much more precisely known.
 

Gene rearrangements are non-random, with well established distributions established for deletions and duplications, (http://www.dmd.nl/).
 

For small mutations (point mutations) which concern us in this question, the distribution is effectively random with respect to the coding sequence.
 

But the coding sequence is far from random with respect to the physical map. Being the largest know gene in nature, dystrophin contains several exceptionally large introns. Particularly large are introns 1, 2, 7 and 44.

back to top of page


Applying this information to ‘real-life’ carrier risk problems.

 

Questions you should ask yourself include:
 

Which are the closest informative markers to the recombination that has been identified?
 

If this is a large physical distance, are there additional markers that could be assayed to refine the recombination position?
 

Is the recombination distribution even over this interval, or is the recombination distribution polarised?
 

Is the mutation distribution even over this interval? Remember to consider if you have excluded certain classes of mutation by other experiments (e.g. deletions and duplications excluded by MLPA in this example). Remember too that you need to consider the mutation distribution with respect to the physical distance rather than with respect to the coding sequence. You may need to examine exon distribution and exon sizes.

 

Back to top of page

 

Proceed to feedback on this case