Reality check: insertion v duplication
1
0
Entering edit mode
5.0 years ago
andrewl ▴ 10

Quick reality check - I have been normalizing VCFs and annotation files according to this methodology:

Tan A, Abecasis GR, Kang HM. Unified representation of genetic variants.

An example implementation would be this here: https://github.com/ericminikel/minimal_representation/blob/master/normalize.py

A consequence of this is that all duplications get converted to insertions post normalization.

For example: ref: C, alt: CC would be normalized to ref: A, alt: AC (assuming A is the base pair preceding the ref position) or ref: CAC alt: CACCAC would be normalized to ref: G alt: GCAC (assuming G is the base pair preceding the ref position)

Does this make sense? Other than the label "insertion" v "duplication", should there be any importance given to the fact that these variations were duplications before the normalization, from a biological/clinical POV?

normalization DNA • 1.9k views
ADD COMMENT
2
Entering edit mode
5.0 years ago

Duplication vs insertion distinction certainly has biological/clinical relevance, such as trinucleotide repeat expansion in Huntington's disease. Duplications are meta-stable and subject to copy number changes during replication, while non-duplicated insertions are not. And, depending upon the size and orientation, duplications are also prone to intra- and inter-molecular recombination, whereas non-duplicated insertions can actually suppress recombination.

ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode

Wow - thanks I was expecting that this was a silly question to answer, now glad I did.

ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 917 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6