SMIM1 underlies the Vel blood group and influences red blood cell traits.

The blood group Vel was discovered 60 years ago, but the underlying gene is unknown. Individuals negative for the Vel antigen are rare and are required for the safe transfusion of patients with antibodies to Vel. To identify the responsible gene, we sequenced the exomes of five individuals negative for the Vel antigen and found that four were homozygous and one was heterozygous for a low-frequency 17-nucleotide frameshift deletion in the gene encoding the 78-amino-acid transmembrane protein SMIM1. A follow-up study showing that 59 of 64 Vel-negative individuals were homozygous for the same deletion and expression of the Vel antigen on SMIM1-transfected cells confirm SMIM1 as the gene underlying the Vel blood group. An expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL), the common SNP rs1175550 contributes to variable expression of the Vel antigen (P = 0.003) and influences the mean hemoglobin concentration of red blood cells (RBCs; P = 8.6 × 10(-15)). In vivo, zebrafish with smim1 knockdown showed a mild reduction in the number of RBCs, identifying SMIM1 as a new regulator of RBC formation. Our findings are of immediate relevance, as the homozygous presence of the deletion allows the unequivocal identification of Vel-negative blood donors.

Structural variation in the chicken genome identified by paired-end next-generation DNA sequencing of reduced representation libraries.

BACKGROUND: Variation within individual genomes ranges from single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to kilobase, and even megabase, sized structural variants (SVs), such as deletions, insertions, inversions, and more complex rearrangements. Although much is known about the extent of SVs in humans and mice, species in which they exert significant effects on phenotypes, very little is known about the extent of SVs in the 2.5-times smaller and less repetitive genome of the chicken. RESULTS: We identified hundreds of shared and divergent SVs in four commercial chicken lines relative to the reference chicken genome. The majority of SVs were found in intronic and intergenic regions, and we also found SVs in the coding regions. To identify the SVs, we combined high-throughput short read paired-end sequencing of genomic reduced representation libraries (RRLs) of pooled samples from 25 individuals and computational mapping of DNA sequences from a reference genome. CONCLUSION: We provide a first glimpse of the high abundance of small structural genomic variations in the chicken. Extrapolating our results, we estimate that there are thousands of rearrangements in the chicken genome, the majority of which are located in non-coding regions. We observed that structural variation contributes to genetic differentiation among current domesticated chicken breeds and the Red Jungle Fowl. We expect that, because of their high abundance, SVs might explain phenotypic differences and play a role in the evolution of the chicken genome. Finally, our study exemplifies an efficient and cost-effective approach for identifying structural variation in sequenced genomes.

Mining for single nucleotide polymorphisms in pig genome sequence data.

BACKGROUND: Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are ideal genetic markers due to their high abundance and the highly automated way in which SNPs are detected and SNP assays are performed. The number of SNPs identified in the pig thus far is still limited. RESULTS: A total of 4.8 million whole genome shotgun sequences obtained from the NCBI trace-repository with center name "SDJVP", and project name "Sino-Danish Pig Genome Project" were analysed for the presence of SNPs. Available BAC and BAC-end sequences and their naming and mapping information, all obtained from SangerInstitute FTP site, served as a rough assembly of a reference genome. In 1.2 Gb of pig genome sequence, we identified 98,151 SNPs in which one of the sequences in the alignment represented the polymorphism and 6,374 SNPs in which two sequences represent an identical polymorphism. To benchmark the SNP identification method, 163 SNPs, in which the polymorphism was represented twice in the sequence alignment, were selected and tested on a panel of three purebred boar lines and wild boar. Of these 163 in silico identified SNPs, 134 were shown to be polymorphic in our animal panel. CONCLUSION: This SNP identification method, which mines for SNPs in publicly available porcine shotgun sequences repositories, provides thousands of high quality SNPs. Benchmarking in an animal panel showed that more than 80% of the predicted SNPs represented true genetic variation.