Human Genetics

, Volume 132, Issue 6, pp 715–717 | Cite as

At what rate do new premutation alleles arise at the fragile X locus?

Letter to the Editor

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Amy Cronister for sharing additional data on the size distribution of the intermediate alleles initially reported in Cronister et al. (2008). This research was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants HD002274 and GM077464. DPG was supported in part by the Jaconnette L. Tietze Young Scientist Award.

References

  1. Ashley AE, Sherman SL (1995) Population dynamics of a meiotic/mitotic expansion model for the fragile X syndrome. Am J Hum Genet 57:1414–1425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chonchaiya W, Schneider A, Hagerman RJ (2009) Fragile X: a family of disorders. Adv Pediatr 56:165–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cronister A, Schreiner R, Wittenberger M, Amiri K, Harris K, Hagerman RJ (1991) Heterozygous fragile X female: historical, physical, cognitive, and cytogenetic features. Am J Med Genet 38:269–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cronister A, Teicher J, Rohlfs EM, Donnenfeld A, Hallam S (2008) Prevalence and instability of fragile X alleles: implications for offering fragile X prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 111:596–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Curlis Y, Zhang C, Holden JJA, Loesch PKKD, Mitchell RJ (2005) Haplotype study of intermediate-length alleles at the fragile X (FMR1) gene: ATL1, FMRb, and microsatellite haplotypes differ from those found in common-size FMR1 alleles. Hum Biol 77:137–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eichler EE, Holden JJA, Popvich BW, Reiss AL, Snow K, Thibodeau SN, Richards CS, Ward PA, Nelson DL (1994) Length of uninterrupted CGG repeats determines the instability of the FMR1 gene. Nat Genet 8:88–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eichler EE, Hammond HA, Macpherson JN, Ward PA, Nelson DL (1995) Population survey of the human FMR1 CGG repeat substructure suggests biased polarity for the loss of AGG interruptions. Hum Mol Genet 4:2199–2208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hagerman PJ (2008) The fragile X prevalence paradox. J Med Genet 45:498–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jacobs PA, Bullman H, Macpherson J, Youings S, Rooney V, Watson A, Dennis NR (1993) Population studies of the fragile X: a molecular approach. J Med Genet 30:454–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kolehmainen K (1994) Population genetics of fragile X: a multiple allele model with variable risk of CGG repeat expansion. Am J Med Genet 51:428–435. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320510425 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Morris A, Morton NE, Collins A, Lawrence S, Macpherson JN (1995) Evolutionary dynamics of the FMR1 locus. Ann Hum Genet 59:283–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morton NE, Macpherson JN (1992) Population genetics of the fragile-X syndrome: multiallelic model for the FMR1 locus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:4215–4217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nolin SL, Glicksman A, Ding X, Ersalesi N, Brown WT, Sherman SL, Dobkin C (2011) Fragile X analysis of 1112 prenatal samples from 1991 to 2010. Prenat Diagn 31:925–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Otsuka S, Sakamoto Y, Siomi H, Itakura M, Yamamoto K, Matumoto H, Sasaki T, Kato N, Nanba E (2010) Fragile X carrier screening and FMR1 allele distribution in the Japanese population. Brain Dev 32:110–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Richards RI, Holman K, Friend K, Kremer E, Hillen D, Staples A, Brown WT et al (1992) Evidence of founder chromosomes in fragile X syndrome. Nat Genet 1(4):257–260. doi: 10.1038/ng0792-257 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sherman SL, Morton NE, Jacobs PA, Turner G (1984) The marker (X) syndrome: a cytogenetic and genetic analysis. Ann Hum Genet 48:21–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sherman SL, Jacobs PA, Morton NE, Froster-Iskenius U, Howard-Peebles PN, Nielsen KB, Partington MW et al (1985) Further segregation analysis of the fragile X syndrome with special reference to transmitting males. Hum Genet 69:289–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smits A, Smeets D, Hamel B, Dreesen J, van Oost B (1992) High prevalence of the fra(X) syndrome cannot be explained by a high mutation rate. Am J Med Genet 43:345–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sved JA, Laird CD (1990) Population genetic consequences of the fragile-X syndrome, based on the X-inactivation imprinting model. Am J Hum Genet 46:443–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Vogel F, Motulsky AG (1986) Human Genetics, Vol 2. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. Vogel F, Krüger J, Brøndum Nielsen K, Fryns JP, Schindler D, Schinzel A, Schmidt A, Schwinger E (1985) Recurrent mutation pressure does not explain the prevalence of the marker X syndrome. Hum Genet 71:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vogel F, Crusio WE, Kovac C, Fryns JP, Freund M (1990) Selective advantage of fra (X) heterozygotes. Hum Genet 86:25–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Winter RM (1987) Population genetics implications of the premutation hypothesis for the generation of the fragile X mental retardation gene. Hum Genet 75:269–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyWestfield State UniversityWestfieldUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biology and Center on Human Development and DisabilityUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations