Title |
Defining “mutation” and “polymorphism” in the era of personal genomics
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Genomics, July 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12920-015-0115-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Roshan Karki, Deep Pandya, Robert C. Elston, Cristiano Ferlini |
Abstract |
The growing advances in DNA sequencing tools have made analyzing the human genome cheaper and faster. While such analyses are intended to identify complex variants, related to disease susceptibility and efficacy of drug responses, they have blurred the definitions of mutation and polymorphism. In the era of personal genomics, it is critical to establish clear guidelines regarding the use of a reference genome. Nowadays DNA variants are called as differences in comparison to a reference. In a sequencing project Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and DNA mutations are defined as DNA variants detectable in >1 % or <1 % of the population, respectively. The alternative use of the two terms mutation or polymorphism for the same event (a difference as compared with a reference) can lead to problems of classification. These problems can impact the accuracy of the interpretation and the functional relationship between a disease state and a genomic sequence. We propose to solve this nomenclature dilemma by defining mutations as DNA variants obtained in a paired sequencing project including the germline DNA of the same individual as a reference. Moreover, the term mutation should be accompanied by a qualifying prefix indicating whether the mutation occurs only in somatic cells (somatic mutation) or also in the germline (germline mutation). We believe this distinction in definition will help avoid confusion among researchers and support the practice of sequencing the germline and somatic tissues in parallel to classify the DNA variants thus defined as mutations. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 20% |
Canada | 2 | 13% |
Belgium | 1 | 7% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
New Zealand | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 7 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 9 | 60% |
Scientists | 4 | 27% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Ireland | 1 | <1% |
Italy | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 616 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 135 | 22% |
Student > Master | 114 | 18% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 65 | 10% |
Researcher | 45 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 28 | 5% |
Other | 85 | 14% |
Unknown | 150 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 169 | 27% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 94 | 15% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 64 | 10% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 26 | 4% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 4% |
Other | 76 | 12% |
Unknown | 171 | 27% |