New work has directly estimated male gene conversion rates in three regions of the human genome and identified gene conversion hot spots in the same locations as previously identified crossover hot spots. This work elucidates the fine-scale structure of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the human genome and will be useful in association studies and other LD-based applications in population and human genetics.
Standard models suggest that there are two different forms of homologous recombination, commonly called crossover (which may be accompanied by gene conversion) and gene conversion (without an associated crossover)1. Crossover rates vary tremendously across the human genome2, by several orders of magnitude over distances as small as 1 kb (ref. 3). But there are few direct data on homologous gene conversion rates4, and no information on the extent to which gene conversion rates vary across the genome. In the accompanying paper, Alec Jeffreys and Celia May5 estimated gene conversion rates at three known crossover hot spots in humans by sperm typing. They found that all three regions were gene conversion hot spots as well and that in each case, the location of the peak of conversion activity coincided with the peak of crossover rates. The coincidence of these peaks suggests that the molecular mechanisms generating most crossovers and gene conversion events are related.
Recombination and LD
Recombination is one of the primary factors that affect LD (the nonrandom association of alleles at different sites). Standard population genetics models of recombination generally ignore gene conversion, even though crossovers and gene conversions have different effects on the structure of LD. Recombination between pairs of markers that are far apart are almost exclusively crossovers, whereas pairs of markers that are close together are affected by both crossovers and gene conversion events. This is crucial for interpreting patterns of human sequence variation. For example, analyses of human data have found less LD than expected over short distances (e.g., <5 kb) given the LD observed over longer distances (e.g., >100 kb; ref. 6). This seemingly discordant observation is exactly what would be expected under a model of recombination that incorporates both crossovers and gene conversion. In addition, adding gene conversion to our models will make other population genetics applications, such as inference of population history from patterns of LD, both easier and more reliable.
The effect of gene conversion on LD also affects human genetics, a primary goal of which is to identify the genetic variants that affect susceptibility to complex diseases. Much recent work on the subject focuses on association mapping methods that use LD. Association mapping attempts to identify causal variants by typing many (e.g., thousands) single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a sample of unrelated individuals and then determining whether any of the SNPs are associated with the disease phenotype of interest. The rationale is that even if the SNPs that were typed do not directly affect disease susceptibility, they will be in strong LD with markers that do. The optimal marker density and success of association studies depend on the fine-scale structure of LD, and in particular on the expected decay of LD with physical distance. Jeffreys and May5 estimated that most recombination events are gene conversions (∼80–94% of events) and that mean tract lengths (i.e., size of the converted piece) are small (∼55–290 bp). For these parameter values, gene conversion would more than double the effective recombination rate between closely spaced markers (e.g., ones within 2 kb of each other) but would have little effect on pairs of distant markers.
This might be important when trying to predict levels of LD between typed and untyped markers. Generally, when two nearby markers are in strong LD with each other, it is assumed that all markers in between are in strong LD with both end markers. This is the motivation for several recent definitions of 'haplotype blocks' (reviewed in ref. 7). But when the gene conversion rate is high and the marker density is low, it is possible that the intervening SNPs are not in strong LD with the end markers7 (Fig. 1). These SNPs can be thought of as 'holes' in haplotype blocks; these holes would reduce the efficacy of association studies. Further empirical and theoretical studies are needed to determine what practical effect, if any, this will have on future association studies.
Recombination rate variation
A more detailed assessment of the potential relevance of gene conversion to patterns of LD and to questions in population and human genetics would require data on gene conversion rates and conversion tract lengths from many other regions of the genome. Because estimating gene conversion parameters indirectly from patterns of LD is rather difficult to do accurately8, more direct experimental data, for example, from sperm typing, would be a welcome development.
Jeffreys and May5 chose to study known crossover hot spots in the MHC in part because the high recombination rates and high marker densities made direct parameter estimation much easier. But because the MHC hot spot regions may be atypical, it is not clear whether the gene conversion parameter estimates from these regions are applicable to the rest of the genome. The fraction of recombination events that are gene conversions may be higher in regions of low crossover rate, and mean conversion tract lengths may vary with levels of heterozygosity9,10,11. These empirical questions will eventually be answered. But comparable sperm typing studies in regions of the genome with average recombination rates (e.g., with crossover rates of ∼1.3 cM per Mb; ref. 12) will have to screen many more sperm to recover the same number of recombinants and, because of the lower marker densities, will be less informative about the distribution of conversion tract lengths.
For now, the results of Jeffreys and May5, together with recent work from the Jeffreys laboratory (and other laboratories), raise a host of other questions about recombination rate variation. What is the scale over which crossover and gene conversion rates vary across the human genome? How common are recombination hot spots? Are there regions that are hot spots for either crossover or gene conversion activity but not both? How strongly are male recombination rates, which can be estimated by sperm typing, correlated with female recombination rates? Given that there can be large differences in recombination rates across individuals2,13, there is also the possibility that there are large differences in recombination rates between different human populations.
References
Szostak, J.W. et al. Cell 33, 25–35 (1983).
Arnheim, N., Calabrese, P. & Nordborg, M. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73, 5–16 (2003).
Jeffreys, A.J. et al. Nat. Genet. 29, 217–222 (2001).
Zangenberg, G. et al. Nat. Genet. 10, 407–414 (1995).
Jeffreys, A. & May, C. Nat. Genet. 36, 151–156 (2004).
Pritchard, J. & Przeworski, M. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69, 1–14 (2001).
Wall, J. & Pritchard, J. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4, 587–597 (2003).
Ptak, S., Voelpel, K. & Przeworski, M. Genetics (in the press).
Borts, R. & Haber, J.E. Science 237, 1459–1465 (1987).
Langley, C. et al. Genetics 156, 1837–1852 (2000).
Andolfatto, P. & Wall, J. Genetics 165, 1289–1305 (2003).
Kong, A. et al. Nat. Genet. 31, 241–247 (2002).
Jeffreys, A. & Neumann, R. Nat. Genet. 31, 267–271 (2002).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wall, J. Close look at gene conversion hot spots. Nat Genet 36, 114–115 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0204-114
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0204-114
This article is cited by
-
Tetrad analysis in plants and fungi finds large differences in gene conversion rates but no GC bias
Nature Ecology & Evolution (2017)
-
Hypothesis testing of meiotic recombination rates from population genetic data
BMC Genetics (2014)
-
High-resolution mapping of meiotic crossovers and non-crossovers in yeast
Nature (2008)
-
Gene conversion: mechanisms, evolution and human disease
Nature Reviews Genetics (2007)