Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Translational genetics

Structural variation in the 3D genome

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 19, pages 453–467 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Structural and quantitative chromosomal rearrangements, collectively referred to as structural variation (SV), contribute to a large extent to the genetic diversity of the human genome and thus are of high relevance for cancer genetics, rare diseases and evolutionary genetics. Recent studies have shown that SVs can not only affect gene dosage but also modulate basic mechanisms of gene regulation. SVs can alter the copy number of regulatory elements or modify the 3D genome by disrupting higher-order chromatin organization such as topologically associating domains. As a result of these position effects, SVs can influence the expression of genes distant from the SV breakpoints, thereby causing disease. The impact of SVs on the 3D genome and on gene expression regulation has to be considered when interpreting the pathogenic potential of these variant types.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: HiC as a tool to study the effect of structural variation on chromatin folding.
Fig. 2: Clinical examples of structural variations in the 3D genome.
Fig. 3: Structural variation not disrupting TAD structures.
Fig. 4: TAD disruption: deletions and duplications.
Fig. 5: TAD shuffling: inversions and translocations.
Fig. 6: Possible strategies to interpret structural variations in the 3D genome.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sudmant, P. H. et al. An integrated map of structural variation in 2,504 human genomes. Nature 526, 75–81 (2015). This study provides a comprehensive structural variation map of >25,000 healthy human genomes.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Genome of the Netherlands Consortium. Whole-genome sequence variation, population structure and demographic history of the Dutch population. Nat. Genet. 46, 818–825 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kloosterman, W. P. et al. Characteristics of de novo structural changes in the human genome. Genome Res. 25, 792–801 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Weischenfeldt, J., Symmons, O., Spitz, F. & Korbel, J. O. Phenotypic impact of genomic structural variation: insights from and for human disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 125–138 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zarrei, M., MacDonald, J. R., Merico, D. & Scherer, S. W. A copy number variation map of the human genome. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16, 172–183 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sebat, J. et al. Strong association of de novo copy number mutations with autism. Science 316, 445–449 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Soemedi, R. et al. Contribution of global rare copy-number variants to the risk of sporadic congenital heart disease. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 91, 489–501 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Xu, B. et al. Strong association of de novo copy number mutations with sporadic schizophrenia. Nat. Genet. 40, 880–885 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Walsh, T. et al. Rare structural variants disrupt multiple genes in neurodevelopmental pathways in schizophrenia. Science 320, 539–543 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cooper, G. M. et al. A copy number variation morbidity map of developmental delay. Nat. Genet. 43, 838–846 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Yang, L. et al. Diverse mechanisms of somatic structural variations in human cancer genomes. Cell 153, 919–929 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. de Leeuw, N. et al. Diagnostic interpretation of array data using public databases and internet sources. Hum. Mutat. 33, 930–940 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Biederman, B. & Bowen, P. Balanced translocations involving chromosome 12: report of a case and possible evidence for position effect. Ann. Genet. 19, 257–260 (1976).

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hecht, F. & Kaiser-McCaw, B. Position effect in 8;14 translocation in Burkitt’s lymphoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 304, 174–175 (1981).

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Venter, J. C. et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science 291, 1304–1351 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium et al. Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature 518, 317–330 (2015).

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. The ENCODE Project Consortium. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012).

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Carvalho, C. M. & Lupski, J. R. Mechanisms underlying structural variant formation in genomic disorders. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 224–238 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pombo, A. & Dillon, N. Three-dimensional genome architecture: players and mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 245–257 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bonev, B. & Cavalli, G. Organization and function of the 3D genome. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 772 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Krijger, P. H. & de Laat, W. Regulation of disease-associated gene expression in the 3D genome. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 17, 771–782 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Alkan, C., Coe, B. P. & Eichler, E. E. Genome structural variation discovery and genotyping. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12, 363–376 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wright, C. F., FitzPatrick, D. R. & Firth, H. V. Paediatric genomics: diagnosing rare disease in children. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19 253–268 (2018).

  24. Gilissen, C. et al. Genome sequencing identifies major causes of severe intellectual disability. Nature 511, 344–347 (2014). This landmark study uses whole-genome sequencing to identify complex de novo SV in families with intellectual disability, including single exon deletions and insertional duplications.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cretu Stancu, M. et al. Mapping and phasing of structural variation in patient genomes using nanopore sequencing. Nat. Commun. 8, 1326 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Huddleston, J. et al. Discovery and genotyping of structural variation from long-read haploid genome sequence data. Genome Res. 27, 677–685 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chaisson, M. J. P. et al. Multi-platform discovery of haplotype-resolved structural variation in human genomes. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/193144 (2017).

  28. de Vries, B. B. et al. Diagnostic genome profiling in mental retardation. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 77, 606–616 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Talkowski, M. E. et al. Sequencing chromosomal abnormalities reveals neurodevelopmental loci that confer risk across diagnostic boundaries. Cell 149, 525–537 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Marshall, C. R. et al. Structural variation of chromosomes in autism spectrum disorder. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 82, 477–488 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Flottmann, R. et al. Noncoding copy-number variations are associated with congenital limb malformation. Genet. Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.154 (2017).

  32. Sanders, S. J. et al. Insights into autism spectrum disorder genomic architecture and biology from 71 risk loci. Neuron 87, 1215–1233 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 68–74 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hehir-Kwa, J. Y. et al. A high-quality human reference panel reveals the complexity and distribution of genomic structural variants. Nat. Commun. 7, 12989 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Brandler, W. M. et al. Frequency and complexity of de novo structural mutation in autism. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 98, 667–679 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Goldmann, J. M. et al. Parent-of-origin-specific signatures of de novo mutations. Nat. Genet. 48, 935–939 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Lelieveld, S. H. et al. Spatial clustering of de novo missense mutations identifies candidate neurodevelopmental disorder-associated genes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 101, 478–484 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Turner, T. N. et al. Genomic patterns of de novo mutation in simplex autism. Cell 171, 710–722.e12 (2017). This study combines six SV calling algorithms to identify all de novo SVs in 516 families with autism.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Turner, T. N. et al. Genome sequencing of autism-affected families reveals disruption of putative noncoding regulatory DNA. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 98, 58–74 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Brandler, W. M. et al. Paternally inherited noncoding structural variants contribute to autism. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/102327 (2017).

  41. Werling, D. M. et al. Limited contribution of rare, noncoding variation to autism spectrum disorder from sequencing of 2,076 genomes in quartet families. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/127043 (2017).

  42. Siva, N. UK gears up to decode 100,000 genomes from NHS patients. Lancet 385, 103–104 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Deciphering Developmental Disorders Study. Prevalence and architecture of de novo mutations in developmental disorders. Nature 542, 433–438 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. MacDonald, J. R., Ziman, R., Yuen, R. K., Feuk, L. & Scherer, S. W. The Database of Genomic Variants: a curated collection of structural variation in the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D986–D992 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. van Bon, B. W. M., Mefford, H. C. & de Vries, B. B. A. 15q13.3 Microdeletion. GeneReviews https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50780/ (23 July 2015).

  46. Klopocki, E. et al. Complex inheritance pattern resembling autosomal recessive inheritance involving a microdeletion in thrombocytopenia-absent radius syndrome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 80, 232–240 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Lupski, J. R. et al. Gene dosage is a mechanism for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A. Nat. Genet. 1, 29–33 (1992).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Lek, M. et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature 536, 285–291 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Lindsay, E. A. et al. Tbx1 haploinsufficieny in the DiGeorge syndrome region causes aortic arch defects in mice. Nature 410, 97–101 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Merscher, S. et al. TBX1 is responsible for cardiovascular defects in velo-cardio-facial/DiGeorge syndrome. Cell 104, 619–629 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Zollino, M. et al. Mutations in KANSL1 cause the 17q21.31 microdeletion syndrome phenotype. Nat. Genet. 44, 636–638 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Talkowski, M. E. et al. Assessment of 2q23.1 microdeletion syndrome implicates MBD5 as a single causal locus of intellectual disability, epilepsy, and autism spectrum disorder. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 89, 551–563 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Slager, R. E., Newton, T. L., Vlangos, C. N., Finucane, B. & Elsea, S. H. Mutations in RAI1 associated with Smith-Magenis syndrome. Nat. Genet. 33, 466–468 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Lupski, J. R. et al. DNA duplication associated with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A. Cell 66, 219–232 (1991).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Chance, P. F. et al. DNA deletion associated with hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies. Cell 72, 143–151 (1993).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Cremer, T. & Cremer, C. Chromosome territories, nuclear architecture and gene regulation in mammalian cells. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2, 292–301 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Saurin, A. J. et al. The human polycomb group complex associates with pericentromeric heterochromatin to form a novel nuclear domain. J. Cell Biol. 142, 887–898 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Wansink, D. G. et al. Fluorescent labeling of nascent RNA reveals transcription by RNA polymerase II in domains scattered throughout the nucleus. J. Cell Biol. 122, 283–293 (1993).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Lieberman-Aiden, E. et al. Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science 326, 289–293 (2009). This study presents the original description of the HiC protocol to analyse genome-wide chromatin interactions.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Dekker, J., Marti-Renom, M. A. & Mirny, L. A. Exploring the three-dimensional organization of genomes: interpreting chromatin interaction data. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 390–403 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Rao, S. S. et al. A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell 159, 1665–1680 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Bianco, S. et al. Polymer physics predicts the effects of structural variants on chromatin architecture. Nat. Genet. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0098-8 (2018).

  63. Franke, M. et al. Formation of new chromatin domains determines pathogenicity of genomic duplications. Nature 538, 265–269 (2016). This study shows that duplications can result in the formation of new TADs, a process that determines the pathogenicity of these rearrangements.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Burton, J. N. et al. Chromosome-scale scaffolding of de novo genome assemblies based on chromatin interactions. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1119–1125 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Rickman, D. S. et al. Oncogene-mediated alterations in chromatin conformation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 9083–9088 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Harewood, L. et al. Hi-C as a tool for precise detection and characterisation of chromosomal rearrangements and copy number variation in human tumours. Genome Biol. 18, 125 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Montavon, T. et al. A regulatory archipelago controls Hox genes transcription in digits. Cell 147, 1132–1145 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Spitz, F. & Furlong, E. E. Transcription factors: from enhancer binding to developmental control. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 613–626 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Kagey, M. H. et al. Mediator and cohesin connect gene expression and chromatin architecture. Nature 467, 430–435 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Splinter, E. et al. CTCF mediates long-range chromatin looping and local histone modification in the beta-globin locus. Genes Dev. 20, 2349–2354 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Palstra, R. J. et al. The beta-globin nuclear compartment in development and erythroid differentiation. Nat. Genet. 35, 190–194 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. de Wit, E. & de Laat, W. A decade of 3C technologies: insights into nuclear organization. Genes Dev. 26, 11–24 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Dekker, J., Rippe, K., Dekker, M. & Kleckner, N. Capturing chromosome conformation. Science 295, 1306–1311 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Dixon, J. R. et al. Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions. Nature 485, 376–380 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Nora, E. P., Dekker, J. & Heard, E. Segmental folding of chromosomes: a basis for structural and regulatory chromosomal neighborhoods? Bioessays 35, 818–828 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Lupianez, D. G. et al. Disruptions of topological chromatin domains cause pathogenic rewiring of gene-enhancer interactions. Cell 161, 1012–1025 (2015). This study demonstrates that TAD fusion (deletions) and TAD shuffling (inversions) can cause congenital disease.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Ruf, S. et al. Large-scale analysis of the regulatory architecture of the mouse genome with a transposon-associated sensor. Nat. Genet. 43, 379–386 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Symmons, O. et al. Functional and topological characteristics of mammalian regulatory domains. Genome Res. 24, 390–400 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Marinic, M., Aktas, T., Ruf, S. & Spitz, F. An integrated holo-enhancer unit defines tissue and gene specificity of the Fgf8 regulatory landscape. Dev. Cell 24, 530–542 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Dixon, J. R., Gorkin, D. U. & Ren, B. Chromatin domains: the unit of chromosome organization. Mol. Cell 62, 668–680 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Noordermeer, D. et al. Variegated gene expression caused by cell-specific long-range DNA interactions. Nat. Cell Biol. 13, 944–951 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Symmons, O. et al. The Shh topological domain facilitates the action of remote enhancers by reducing the effects of genomic distances. Dev. Cell 39, 529–543 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Lettice, L. A. et al. Opposing functions of the ETS factor family define Shh spatial expression in limb buds and underlie polydactyly. Dev. Cell 22, 459–467 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Kvon, E. Z. et al. Progressive Loss of function in a limb enhancer during snake evolution. Cell 167, 633–642.e11 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Moorthy, S. D. et al. Enhancers and super-enhancers have an equivalent regulatory role in embryonic stem cells through regulation of single or multiple genes. Genome Res. 27, 246–258 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Cannavo, E. et al. Shadow enhancers are pervasive features of developmental regulatory networks. Curr. Biol. 26, 38–51 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Hnisz, D. et al. Super-enhancers in the control of cell identity and disease. Cell 155, 934–947 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Long, H. K., Prescott, S. L. & Wysocka, J. Ever-changing landscapes: transcriptional enhancers in development and evolution. Cell 167, 1170–1187 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Will, A. J. et al. Composition and dosage of a multipartite enhancer cluster control developmental expression of Ihh (Indian hedgehog). Nat. Genet. 49, 1539–1545 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. St-Jacques, B., Hammerschmidt, M. & McMahon, A. P. Indian hedgehog signaling regulates proliferation and differentiation of chondrocytes and is essential for bone formation. Genes Dev. 13, 2072–2086 (1999).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Hay, D. et al. Genetic dissection of the alpha-globin super-enhancer in vivo. Nat. Genet. 48, 895–903 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Shin, H. Y. et al. Hierarchy within the mammary STAT5-driven Wap super-enhancer. Nat. Genet. 48, 904–911 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Fulco, C. P. et al. Systematic mapping of functional enhancer-promoter connections with CRISPR interference. Science 354, 769–773 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Dickel, D. E. et al. Ultraconserved enhancers are required for normal development. Cell 172, 491–499.e15 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Osterwalder, M. et al. Enhancer redundancy provides phenotypic robustness in mammalian development. Nature 554, 239–243 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Zabidi, M. A. et al. Enhancer-core-promoter specificity separates developmental and housekeeping gene regulation. Nature 518, 556–559 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Lohan, S. et al. Microduplications encompassing the Sonic hedgehog limb enhancer ZRS are associated with Haas-type polysyndactyly and Laurin-Sandrow syndrome. Clin. Genet. 86, 318–325 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Klopocki, E. et al. A microduplication of the long range SHH limb regulator (ZRS) is associated with triphalangeal thumb-polysyndactyly syndrome. J. Med. Genet. 45, 370–375 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Benko, S. et al. Highly conserved non-coding elements on either side of SOX9 associated with Pierre Robin sequence. Nat. Genet. 41, 359–364 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Nora, E. P. et al. Spatial partitioning of the regulatory landscape of the X-inactivation centre. Nature 485, 381–385 (2012). References 74 and 100 demonstrate the presence of TADs in the mammalian genome.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Spielmann, M. & Mundlos, S. Structural variations, the regulatory landscape of the genome and their alteration in human disease. Bioessays 35, 533–543 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Spielmann, M. et al. Homeotic arm-to-leg transformation associated with genomic rearrangements at the PITX1 locus. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 91, 629–635 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Birnbaum, R. Y. et al. Coding exons function as tissue-specific enhancers of nearby genes. Genome Res. 22, 1059–1068 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Tayebi, N. et al. Deletions of exons with regulatory activity at the DYNC1I1 locus are associated with split-hand/split-foot malformation: array CGH screening of 134 unrelated families. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 9, 108 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Lango Allen, H. et al. Next generation sequencing of chromosomal rearrangements in patients with split-hand/split-foot malformation provides evidence for DYNC1I1 exonic enhancers of DLX5/6 expression in humans. J. Med. Genet. 51, 264–267 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Ghiasvand, N. M. et al. Deletion of a remote enhancer near ATOH7 disrupts retinal neurogenesis, causing NCRNA disease. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 578–586 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Bhatia, S. et al. Disruption of autoregulatory feedback by a mutation in a remote, ultraconserved PAX6 enhancer causes aniridia. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 93, 1126–1134 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Dathe, K. et al. Duplications involving a conserved regulatory element downstream of BMP2 are associated with brachydactyly type A2. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 84, 483–492 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Sun, M. et al. Triphalangeal thumb-polysyndactyly syndrome and syndactyly type IV are caused by genomic duplications involving the long range, limb-specific SHH enhancer. J. Med. Genet. 45, 589–595 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Klopocki, E. et al. Copy-number variations involving the IHH locus are associated with syndactyly and craniosynostosis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 88, 70–75 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Ngcungcu, T. et al. Duplicated enhancer region increases expression of CTSB and segregates with Keratolytic winter erythema in South African and Norwegian families. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 100, 737–750 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Cox, J. J., Willatt, L., Homfray, T. & Woods, C. G. A. SOX9 duplication and familial 46,XX developmental testicular disorder. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 91–93 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Lupianez, D. G., Spielmann, M. & Mundlos, S. Breaking TADs: how alterations of chromatin domains result in disease. Trends Genet. 32, 225–237 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Lettice, L. A. et al. Enhancer-adoption as a mechanism of human developmental disease. Hum. Mutat. 32, 1492–1499 (2011). This study describes the disease mechanism of enhancer adoption in developmental disease.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Northcott, P. A. et al. Enhancer hijacking activates GFI1 family oncogenes in medulloblastoma. Nature 511, 428–434 (2014). This study reports the phenomenon of enhancer hijacking in cancer.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Redin, C. et al. The genomic landscape of balanced cytogenetic abnormalities associated with human congenital anomalies. Nat. Genet. 49, 36–45 (2017). By mapping the breakpoints of 273 balanced cytogenetic abnormalities, this study shows that TAD disruption is frequently associated with human congenital anomalies.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Northcott, P. A. et al. The whole-genome landscape of medulloblastoma subtypes. Nature 547, 311–317 (2017). This study shows that TAD shuffling and enhancer hijacking are frequent causes of medulloblastoma, a highly malignant childhood brain tumour.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Ordulu, Z. et al. Structural chromosomal rearrangements require nucleotide-level resolution: lessons from next-generation sequencing in prenatal diagnosis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 99, 1015–1033 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Pfeifer, D. et al. Campomelic dysplasia translocation breakpoints are scattered over 1 Mb proximal to SOX9: evidence for an extended control region. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 65, 111–124 (1999).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Hnisz, D. et al. Activation of proto-oncogenes by disruption of chromosome neighborhoods. Science 351, 1454–1458 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Weischenfeldt, J. et al. Pan-cancer analysis of somatic copy-number alterations implicates IRS4 and IGF2 in enhancer hijacking. Nat. Genet. 49, 65–74 (2017). This paper describes a computational framework termed cis-expression structural alteration mapping (CESAM) to detect cancer-related gene overexpression resulting from TAD reorganization.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Kurth, I. et al. Duplications of noncoding elements 5’ of SOX9 are associated with brachydactyly-anonychia. Nat. Genet. 41, 862–863 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Zepeda-Mendoza, C. J. et al. Computational prediction of position effects of apparently balanced human chromosomal rearrangements. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 101, 206–217 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Ibn-Salem, J. et al. Deletions of chromosomal regulatory boundaries are associated with congenital disease. Genome Biol. 15, 423 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Sanchis-Juan, A. et al. Complex structural variants resolved by short-read and long-read whole genome sequencing in mendelian disorders. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/281683 (2018).

  126. Smedley, D. et al. A whole-genome analysis framework for effective identification of pathogenic regulatory variants in Mendelian disease. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 99, 595–606 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. Duan, Z. et al. A three-dimensional model of the yeast genome. Nature 465, 363–367 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Chiariello, A. M., Annunziatella, C., Bianco, S., Esposito, A. & Nicodemi, M. Polymer physics of chromosome large-scale 3D organisation. Sci. Rep. 6, 29775 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Giorgetti, L. et al. Predictive polymer modeling reveals coupled fluctuations in chromosome conformation and transcription. Cell 157, 950–963 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Sanborn, A. L. et al. Chromatin extrusion explains key features of loop and domain formation in wild-type and engineered genomes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E6456–6465 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. Fudenberg, G. et al. Formation of chromosomal domains by loop extrusion. Cell Rep. 15, 2038–2049 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Sexton, T. et al. Three-dimensional folding and functional organization principles of the Drosophila genome. Cell 148, 458–472 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Phillips-Cremins, J. E. et al. Architectural protein subclasses shape 3D organization of genomes during lineage commitment. Cell 153, 1281–1295 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Andrey, G. et al. Characterization of hundreds of regulatory landscapes in developing limbs reveals two regimes of chromatin folding. Genome Res. 27, 223–233 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Nora, E. P. et al. Targeted degradation of CTCF decouples local insulation of chromosome domains from genomic compartmentalization. Cell 169, 930–944.e22 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Schwarzer, W. et al. Two independent modes of chromatin organization revealed by cohesin removal. Nature 551, 51–56 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Benko, S. et al. Disruption of a long distance regulatory region upstream of SOX9 in isolated disorders of sex development. J. Med. Genet. 48, 825–830 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. Chapuy, B. et al. Discovery and characterization of super-enhancer-associated dependencies in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Cancer Cell 24, 777–790 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. Giorgio, E. et al. A large genomic deletion leads to enhancer adoption by the lamin B1 gene: a second path to autosomal dominant adult-onset demyelinating leukodystrophy (ADLD). Hum. Mol. Genet. 24, 3143–3154 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  140. Flottmann, R. et al. Microdeletions on 6p22.3 are associated with mesomelic dysplasia Savarirayan type. J. Med. Genet. 52, 476–483 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  141. Niedermaier, M. et al. An inversion involving the mouse Shh locus results in brachydactyly through dysregulation of Shh expression. J. Clin. Invest. 115, 900–909 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. Shimojima, K. et al. De novo microdeletion of 5q14.3 excluding MEF2C in a patient with infantile spasms, microcephaly, and agenesis of the corpus callosum. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part A 158A, 2272–2276 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  143. Goubau, C. et al. Platelet defects in congenital variant of Rett syndrome patients with FOXG1 mutations or reduced expression due to a position effect at 14q12. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 21, 1349–1355 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors apologize to colleagues whose work we were unable to discuss or failed to cite owing to space constraints. We thank members of the Mundlos and the Shendure laboratories for helpful discussions. M.S. was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SP1532/2-1). D.G.L. is supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (GA2495/1-1). Work in S.M.’s laboratory is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Berlin Institute for Health and the Max Planck Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Malte Spielmann

  2. Epigenetics and Sex Development Group, Berlin Institute for Medical Systems Biology, Max-Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin-Buch, Germany

    Darío G. Lupiáñez

  3. Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, RG Development & Disease, Berlin, Germany

    Stefan Mundlos

  4. Institute for Medical and Human Genetics, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Stefan Mundlos

Authors
  1. Malte Spielmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darío G. Lupiáñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Mundlos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to all aspects of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Mundlos.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

RELATED LINKS

Database of Genomic Variants: http://dgv.tcag.ca/

3D Genome Browser: http://promoter.bx.psu.edu/hi-c/

VISTA Enhancer Browser: https://enhancer.lbl.gov/

DECIPHER: https://decipher.sanger.ac.uk/

Glossary

Structural variation

(SV). Genetic variation that includes all structural and quantitative chromosomal rearrangements, that is, deletions and duplications, as well as copy-number-neutral aberrations, such as inversions, insertions and translocations.

Copy number variation

(CNV). Genetic variation that refers only to quantitative chromosomal rearrangements, such as deletions and duplications.

Microdeletion and microduplication syndromes

A group of syndromes that are caused by chromosomal microdeletions and microduplications, which make up a subset of copy number variations that are usually smaller than 5 Mb. Classic examples include the 7q11 deletion (Williams–Beuren syndrome), the 15q11–15q13 deletion (Prader–Willi and Angelman syndromes) and the 17p11 deletion (Smith–Magenis syndrome).

Position effects

Effects of structural variation (SV), classically translocations, on the expression of a gene without any changes to its coding sequence or promoter region. These effects can also be observed if a gene is inserted into different regions of the genome or if SVs connect previously unconnected genes and their regulatory units. In these cases, the change in the level of gene expression is thought to result from changes in the position of the gene relative to its normal non-coding cis-regulatory environment.

Chromosome conformation capture

(3C). PCR-based proximity-ligation analysis method of 3D genome organization that allows a reconstruction of the native chromatin structure within the nucleus. 3C employs a PCR-based approach to confirm interactions between two previously known loci (one versus one). The introduction of a second round of digestion and ligation allows the generation of self-circularized DNA fragments (4C-seq), on which inverse PCR can be used to identify all unknown fragments interacting with a specific locus (one versus all). Multiple genomic regions can be investigated in parallel by a multiplexing approach (5C; many versus many). HiC allows the identification of every possible interaction occurring in the nucleus through the introduction of biotin labelling to pull down ligation junctions (all versus all).

Penetrance

A measure of the proportion of people with a particular genetic change (such as a mutation in a specific gene) who exhibit signs and symptoms of a genetic disorder. If some people with the mutation do not develop features of the disorder, the condition is said to have reduced (or incomplete) penetrance.

Gene dosage

The number of copies of a particular gene, including all its regulatory regions present in a genome.

Haploinsufficiency

A state in which one copy of a gene is inactivated or deleted and expression of the remaining functional copy of the gene is not sufficient to preserve normal function.

Topologically associating domains

(TADs). Genomic sequences in the range of megabases in length that are separated by boundary regions and that physically interact with themselves more frequently than with the rest of the genome.

Intra-TAD SVs

Structural variation (SV) that occurs within topologically associating domains (TADs). Within a regulatory domain, SVs of regulatory elements can change the enhancer dosage and may result in a tissue-specific loss of function (deletion) or a gain of function (duplication) of their endogenous target gene, which can be located anywhere within the TAD.

Enhancer adoption

A phenomenon that refers to a regulatory gain of function mutation in which ectopic expression of a gene is driven by an enhancer that normally regulates another gene located in a different regulatory domain; also known as enhancer hijacking.

Inter-TAD SVs

Structural variations (SVs) that occur between topologically associating domains (TADs). Such SVs affect several regulatory domains and have the potential to disrupt and rearrange the complex 3D chromatin organization of a locus by repositioning TAD boundaries, genes and enhancer elements. These position effects may lead to TAD fusion (deletion), neo-TAD formation (duplications) or TAD shuffling (inversion and/or translocation).

TAD shuffling

The reordering of topologically associating domains (TADs) within the genome. Inversions that cross TAD boundaries or translocations can result in the fusion of two regulatory domains that do not naturally belong together, causing enhancer adoption. At the same time, these structural variations can result in regulatory loss of function by removing enhancer elements from their target genes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spielmann, M., Lupiáñez, D.G. & Mundlos, S. Structural variation in the 3D genome. Nat Rev Genet 19, 453–467 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-018-0007-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-018-0007-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing