On Computing the Breakpoint Reuse Rate in Rearrangement Scenarios

  • Anne Bergeron
  • Julia Mixtacki
  • Jens Stoye
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5267)


In the past years, many combinatorial arguments have been made to support the theory that mammalian genome rearrangement scenarios rely heavily on breakpoint reuse. Different models of genome rearrangements have been suggested, from the classical set of operations that include inversions, translocations, fusions and fissions, to more elaborate models that include transpositions. Here we show that the current definition of breakpoint reuse rate is based on assumptions that are seldom true for mammalian genomes, and propose a new approach to compute this parameter. We explore the formal properties of this new measure and apply these results to the human-mouse genome comparison. We show that the reuse rate is intimately linked to a particular rearrangement scenario, and that the reuse rate can vary from 0.89 to 1.51 for scenarios of the same length that transform the mouse genome into the human genome, where a rate of 1 indicates no reuse at all.


Mouse Genome Genome Rearrangement Adjacency Graph Circular Chromosome Linear Chromosome 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alekseyev, M., Pevzner, P.A.: Are there rearrangement hotspots in the human genome? PLoS Comput. Biol. 3(11), e209 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bafna, V., Pevzner, P.: Genome rearrangements and sorting by reversals. SIAM J. Computing 25(2), 272–289 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergeron, A., Mixtacki, J., Stoye, J.: A unifying view of genome rearrangements. In: Bücher, P., Moret, B.M.E. (eds.) WABI 2006. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 4175, pp. 163–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergeron, A., Mixtacki, J., Stoye, J.: HP distance via Double Cut and Join distance. In: Ferragina, P., Landau, G.M. (eds.) CPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5029, pp. 56–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hannenhalli, S., Pevzner, P.A.: Transforming men into mice (polynomial algorithm for genomic distance problem). In: Proceedings of FOCS 1995, pp. 581–592 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jean, G., Nikolski, M.: Genome rearrangements: a correct algorithm for optimal capping. Inf. Process. Lett. 104(1), 14–20 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kececioglu, J.D., Sankoff, D.: Exact and approximation algorithms for sorting by reversals with application to genome rearrangement. Algorithmica 13(1/2), 180–210 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ozery-Flato, M., Shamir, R.: Two notes on genome rearrangements. J. Bioinf. Comput. Biol. 1(1), 71–94 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pevzner, P., Tesler, G.: Human and mouse genomic sequences reveal extensive breakpoint reuse in mammalian evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100(13), 7672–7677 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pevzner, P., Tesler, G.: Transforming men into mice: The Nadeau-Taylor chromosomal breakage model revisited. In: Proceedings of RECOMB 2003, pp. 247–256 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sankoff, D.: Edit distances for genome comparison based on non-local operations. In: Apostolico, A., Galil, Z., Manber, U., Crochemore, M. (eds.) CPM 1992. LNCS, vol. 644, pp. 121–135. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sankoff, D., Trinh, P.: Chromosomal breakpoint reuse in genome sequence rearrangement. J. Comput. Biol. 12(6), 812–821 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sturtevant, A.H.: A crossover reducer in Drosophila melanogaster due to inversion of a section of the third chromosome. Biologisches Zentralblatt 46(12), 697–702 (1926)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tesler, G.: Efficient algorithms for multichromosomal genome rearrangements. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 65(3), 587–609 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tesler, G.: GRIMM: Genome rearrangements web server. Bioinformatics 18(3), 492–493 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yancopoulos, S., Attie, O., Friedberg, R.: Efficient sorting of genomic permutations by translocation, inversion and block interchange. Bioinformatics 21(16), 3340–3346 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Bergeron
    • 1
  • Julia Mixtacki
    • 2
  • Jens Stoye
    • 3
  1. 1.Dépt. d’informatiqueUniversité du Québec à MontréalCanada
  2. 2.International NRW Graduate School in Bioinformatics and Genome ResearchUniversität BielefeldGermany
  3. 3.Technische FakultätUniversität BielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations