2006
DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00094.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Supplemented Data on Mutation Rates in 33 Autosomal Short Tandem Repeat Polymorphisms

Abstract: POPULATION: 106–8598 meioses studied in German Caucasians.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the CODIS loci [18], FGA had the highest mutation rate, and TPOX and TH01 had the lowest mutation rates in each dataset. D18S51 had a moderate mutation rate in [17], [19], and this study, while the highest mutation rate was shown in AABB (Association of Blood Banks) data [18]. Furthermore, differences could be observed within the Chinese Han population [17] at the following loci: D3S1358, D5S818, D18S51, D21S11, and Penta E (Table S3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 44%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the CODIS loci [18], FGA had the highest mutation rate, and TPOX and TH01 had the lowest mutation rates in each dataset. D18S51 had a moderate mutation rate in [17], [19], and this study, while the highest mutation rate was shown in AABB (Association of Blood Banks) data [18]. Furthermore, differences could be observed within the Chinese Han population [17] at the following loci: D3S1358, D5S818, D18S51, D21S11, and Penta E (Table S3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 44%
“…In comparing locus-specific mutation rates with the data from other studies [17][18][19][20], we found that the mutation rate differences between datasets vary with the loci (Table S3). For the CODIS loci [18], FGA had the highest mutation rate, and TPOX and TH01 had the lowest mutation rates in each dataset.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…On a per-generation basis, the mutation rates that we report for C. elegans and D. pulex are much lower than those previously estimated for humans (Heyer et al 1997;Brinkmann et al 1998;Sajantila et al 1999;Kayser et al 2000;Leopoldino and Pena 2003;Dupuy et al 2004;Ballard et al 2005;Gusmao et al 2005;Henke and Henke 2006;Yan et al 2006;Hohoff et al 2007;Lee et al 2007), but much higher than those for yeast (Henderson and Petes 1992;Strand et al 1993;Johnson et al 1996;Sia et al 1997Sia et al , 2001Wierdl et al 1997;Hawk et al 2005;Legendre et al 2007). In principle, such differences could simply arise as a consequence of the pronounced variation in the numbers of germline cell divisions per generation that exists among these species (1, 10, and $200, respectively, in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, C. elegans, and Homo sapiens; Kimble and Ward 1998;Crow 2000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 43%
“…Such slippage adds or deletes repeat units from the newly synthesized strand at a frequency that depends on factors such as overall length, repeat type, flanking sequence, and recombination rate (Schlötterer 2000). Previous estimates of microsatellite mutation rates in animals ½direct estimates derived from individuals with known parentage (Brinkmann et al 1998;Sajantila et al 1999;Leopoldino and Pena 2003;Henke and Henke 2006;Hohoff et al 2007) and indirect estimates based on the application of models of microsatellite evolution to standing patterns of variation (Chakraborty et al 1997) are as high as 10 À3 and 10 À4 / locus/generation. Most studies show that the spectrum of microsatellite mutations is heavily dependent on allele size (Xu et al 2000;Lai and Sun 2003) and suggest that the mechanism may be more complex than the simple stepwise mutation model (Brohede et al 2002;Huang et al 2002;Calabrese and Durrett 2003).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those mutations can be explained by replication slippage, which is generally expected to be the major mechanism causing new STR mutations [22]. Mutations of autosomal STRs are reported to occur in approximately 0.2-0.4% of meiosis [23], and these observations are also similar to those of Y-STRs [24,25,26]. In contrast to the significant mutation rates of STR markers, a main advantage of SNPs is its negligible mutation rate.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%