What determines whether a mutation is passed on to later generations

Genes are in the DNA of each cell in your body. They control how the cell functions, including:

• How quickly it grows

• How often it divides

• How long it lives

Researchers estimate that each cell contains 30,000 different genes. Within each cell, genes are located on chromosomes.  

About chromosomes

Chromosomes are the thread-like structures in cells that contain genes. There are 46 chromosomes, arranged in 2 sets of 23.

You inherit one set from your mother and one from your father. One chromosome in each set determines whether you are female or male. The other 22 chromosome pairs determine other physical characteristics. These chromosome pairs are called autosomes.

How genes work

Genes control how your cells work by making proteins. The proteins have specific functions and act as messengers for the cell.

Each gene must have the correct instructions for making its protein. This allows the protein to perform the correct function for the cell.

All cancers begin when one or more genes in a cell mutate. A mutation is a change. It creates an abnormal protein. Or it may prevent a protein’s formation.

An abnormal protein provides different information than a normal protein. This can cause cells to multiply uncontrollably and become cancerous.

About genetic mutations

There are 2 basic types of genetic mutations:

Acquired mutations. These are the most common cause of cancer. They occur from damage to genes in a particular cell during a person’s life. For example, this could be a breast cell or a colon cell, which then goes on to divide many times and form a tumor. A tumor is an abnormal mass. Cancer that occurs because of acquired mutations is called sporadic cancer. Acquired mutations are not found in every cell in the body and they are not passed from parent to child.

Factors that cause these mutations include:

• Tobacco

• Ultraviolet (UV) radiation

Germline mutations. These are less common. A germline mutation occurs in a sperm cell or egg cell. It passes directly from a parent to a child at the time of conception. As the embryo grows into a baby, the mutation from the initial sperm or egg cell is copied into every cell within the body. Because the mutation affects reproductive cells, it can pass from generation to generation.

Cancer caused by germline mutations is called inherited cancer. It accounts for about 5% to 20% of all cancers.

Mutations and cancer

Mutations happen often. A mutation may be beneficial, harmful, or neutral. This depends where in the gene the change occurs. Typically, the body corrects most mutations.  

A single mutation will likely not cause cancer. Usually, cancer occurs from multiple mutations over a lifetime. That is why cancer occurs more often in older people. They have had more opportunities for mutations to build up.

Types of genes linked to cancer

Many of the genes that contribute to cancer development fall into broad categories:

Tumor suppressor genes. These are protective genes. Normally, they limit cell growth by:

• Monitoring how quickly cells divide into new cells

• Repairing mismatched DNA

• Controlling when a cell dies

When a tumor suppressor gene mutates, cells grow uncontrollably. And they may eventually form a tumor.

Examples of tumor suppressor genes include BRCA1, BRCA2, and p53 or TP53.

Germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes increase a woman’s risk of developing hereditary breast or ovarian cancers and a man’s risk of developing hereditary prostate or breast cancers. They also increase the risk of pancreatic cancer and melanoma in women and men.

The most commonly mutated gene in people with cancer is p53 or TP53. More than 50% of cancers involve a missing or damaged p53 gene. Most p53 gene mutations are acquired. Germline p53 mutations are rare, but patients who carry them are at a higher risk of developing many different types of cancer.

Oncogenes. These turn a healthy cell into a cancerous cell. Mutations in these genes are not known to be inherited.

Two common oncogenes are:

• HER2, a specialized protein that controls cancer growth and spread. It is found in some cancer cells. For example, breast and ovarian cancer cells.

• The RAS family of genes, which makes proteins involved in cell communication pathways, cell growth, and cell death.

DNA repair genes. These fix mistakes made when DNA is copied. Many of them function as tumor suppressor genes. BRCA1, BRCA2, and p53 are all DNA repair genes.

If a person has an error in a DNA repair gene, mistakes remain uncorrected. Then, the mistakes become mutations. These mutations may eventually lead to cancer, particularly mutations in tumor suppressor genes or oncogenes.

Mutations in DNA repair genes may be inherited or acquired. Lynch syndrome is an example of the inherited kind. BRCA1, BRCA2, and p53 mutations and their associated syndromes are also inherited.

Challenges in understanding cancer genetics

Researchers have learned a lot about how cancer genes work. But many cancers are not linked with a specific gene. Cancer likely involves multiple gene mutations. Moreover, some evidence suggests that genes interact with their environment. This further complicates our understanding of the role genes play in cancer.

Researchers continue to study how genetic changes affect cancer development. This knowledge has led to improvements in cancer care, including early detection, risk reduction, the use of targeted therapy, and survival.

Further studying cancer genetics may help doctors find better ways to:

• Predict a person’s risk of cancer

• Diagnose cancer

• Treat cancer

Related Resources

Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk

Understanding Cancer Risk

Hereditary Cancer-Related Syndromes

What Is Personalized Cancer Medicine?

How Genomic Testing Brought Me a Sense of Control During Metastatic Breast Cancer

More Information

National Cancer Institute (NCI): The Genetics of Cancer

NCI: How Genetic Changes Lead to Cancer (infographic)

1. Weatherall DJ. The global problem of genetic disease. Ann Hum Biol. 2005;32:117–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Hassold T, Hall H, Hunt P. The origin of human aneuploidy: where we have been, where we are going. Hum Mol Genet. 2007;16(Spec No 2):R203–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Pacchierotti F, Adler ID, Eichenlaub-Ritter U, Mailhes JB. Gender effects on the incidence of aneuploidy in mammalian germ cells. Environ Res. 2007;104:46–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Rosenbusch BE. Mechanisms giving rise to triploid zygotes during assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:49–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Ellegren H. Microsatellites: simple sequences with complex evolution. Nat Rev Genet. 2004;5:435–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Kelkar YD, Tyekucheva S, Chiaromonte F, Makova KD. The genome-wide determinants of human and chimpanzee microsatellite evolution. Genome Res. 2008;18:30–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Bois P, Jeffreys AJ. Minisatellite instability and germline mutation. Cell Mol Life Sci. 1999;55:1636–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Lupski JR, Stankiewicz P. Genomic disorders: molecular mechanisms for rearrangements and conveyed phenotypes. PLoS Genet. 2005;1:e49. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Inoue K, Lupski JR. Molecular mechanisms for genomic disorders. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2002;3:199–242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Sharp AJ, Cheng Z, Eichler EE. Structural variation of the human genome. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2006;7:407–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Sen SK, et al. Human genomic deletions mediated by recombination between Alu elements. Am J Hum Genet. 2006;79:41–53. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Scherer SW, et al. Challenges and standards in integrating surveys of structural variation. 2007 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Turner DJ, et al. Germline rates of de novo meiotic deletions and duplications causing several genomic disorders. Nat Genet. 2008;40:90–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Babushok DV, Kazazian HH., Jr. Progress in understanding the biology of the human mutagen LINE-1. Hum Mutat. 2007;28:527–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Chen JM, Stenson PD, Cooper DN, Ferec C. A systematic analysis of LINE-1 endonuclease-dependent retrotranspositional events causing human genetic disease. Hum Genet. 2005;117:411–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Cordaux R, Hedges DJ, Herke SW, Batzer MA. Estimating the retrotransposition rate of human Alu elements. Gene. 2006;373:134–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Jacobs PA, Browne C, Gregson N, Joyce C, White H. Estimates of the frequency of chromosome abnormalities detectable in unselected newborns using moderate levels of banding. J Med Genet. 1992;29:103–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Baptista J, et al. Breakpoint mapping and array CGH in translocations: comparison of a phenotypically normal and an abnormal cohort. Am J Hum Genet. 2008;82:927–36. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Chen J-M, Cooper DN, Chuzhanova N, Ferec C, Patrinos GP. Gene conversion: mechanisms, evolution and human disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2007;8:762–775. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Vogel F, Motulsky AG. Human genetics : problems and approaches. Springer, Berlin; New York: 1997. [Google Scholar]

21. Crow JF. The origins, patterns and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nat Rev Genet. 2000;1:40–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Glaser RL, et al. The paternal-age effect in Apert syndrome is due, in part, to the increased frequency of mutations in sperm. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;73:939–47. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Tiemann-Boege I, et al. The observed human sperm mutation frequency cannot explain the achondroplasia paternal age effect. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:14952–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Goriely A, McVean GA, Rojmyr M, Ingemarsson B, Wilkie AO. Evidence for selective advantage of pathogenic FGFR2 mutations in the male germ line. Science. 2003;301:643–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Cole DN, Carlson JA, Wilson VL. Human germline and somatic cells have similar TP53 and Kirsten-RAS gene single base mutation frequencies. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2008;49:417–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Choi SK, Yoon SR, Calabrese P, Arnheim N. A germ-line-selective advantage rather than an increased mutation rate can explain some unexpectedly common human disease mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:10143–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Qin J, et al. The molecular anatomy of spontaneous germline mutations in human testes. PLoS Biol. 2007;5:e224. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Liu Q, Sommer SS. Detection of extremely rare alleles by bidirectional pyrophosphorolysis-activated polymerization allele-specific amplification (Bi-PAP-A): measurement of mutation load in mammalian tissues. Biotechniques. 2004;36:156–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Nachman MW, Crowell SL. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics. 2000;156:297–304. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature. 2005;437:69–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Ebersberger I, Metzler D, Schwarz C, Paabo S. Genomewide comparison of DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees. Am J Hum Genet. 2002;70:1490–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Chen FC, Li WH. Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Am J Hum Genet. 2001;68:444–56. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Kondrashov AS. Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Hum Mutat. 2003;21:12–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Orioli IM, Castilla EE, Scarano G, Mastroiacovo P. Effect of paternal age in achondroplasia, thanatophoric dysplasia, and osteogenesis imperfecta. Am J Med Genet. 1995;59:209–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Horton WA, Hall JG, Hecht JT. Achondroplasia. Lancet. 2007;370:162–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Cohen MM, et al. Birth prevalence study of the Apert syndrome. Am J Med Genet. 1992;42:655–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Tolarova MM, Harris JA, Ordway DE, Vargervik K. Birth prevalence, mutation rate, sex ratio, parents' age, and ethnicity in Apert syndrome. Am J Med Genet. 1997;72:394–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Rousseau F, et al. Mutations in the gene encoding fibroblast growth factor receptor-3 in achondroplasia. Nature. 1994;371:252–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Shiang R, et al. Mutations in the transmembrane domain of FGFR3 cause the most common genetic form of dwarfism, achondroplasia. Cell. 1994;78:335–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Bellus GA, et al. Achondroplasia is defined by recurrent G380R mutations of FGFR3. Am J Hum Genet. 1995;56:368–73. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Park WJ, et al. Analysis of phenotypic features and FGFR2 mutations in Apert syndrome. Am J Hum Genet. 1995;57:321–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Wilkie AO, et al. Apert syndrome results from localized mutations of FGFR2 and is allelic with Crouzon syndrome. Nat Genet. 1995;9:165–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Goriely A, et al. Gain-of-function amino acid substitutions drive positive selection of FGFR2 mutations in human spermatogonia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:6051–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Crow JF. Age and sex effects on human mutation rates: an old problem with new complexities. J Radiat Res (Tokyo) 2006;47(Suppl B):B75–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Kan SH, et al. Genomic screening of fibroblast growth-factor receptor 2 reveals a wide spectrum of mutations in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis. Am J Hum Genet. 2002;70:472–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Morrison SJ, Kimble J. Asymmetric and symmetric stem-cell divisions in development and cancer. Nature. 2006;441:1068–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Knoblich JA. Mechanisms of asymmetric stem cell division. Cell. 2008;132:583–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Dakouane Giudicelli M, et al. Increased achondroplasia mutation frequency with advanced age and evidence for G1138A mosaicism in human testis biopsies. Fertil Steril. 2007 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Eswarakumar VP, Lax I, Schlessinger J. Cellular signaling by fibroblast growth factor receptors. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2005;16:139–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Thisse B, Thisse C. Functions and regulations of fibroblast growth factor signaling during embryonic development. Dev Biol. 2005;287:390–402. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Runeberg-Roos P, Saarma M. Neurotrophic factor receptor RET: structure, cell biology, and inherited diseases. Ann Med. 2007;39:572–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Carlson KM, et al. Single missense mutation in the tyrosine kinase catalytic domain of the RET protooncogene is associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994;91:1579–83. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Carlson KM, et al. Parent-of-origin effects in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B. Am J Hum Genet. 1994;55:1076–82. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Eng C, et al. Point mutation within the tyrosine kinase domain of the RET proto-oncogene in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B and related sporadic tumours. Hum Mol Genet. 1994;3:237–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Wray CJ, et al. Failure to recognize multiple endocrine neoplasia 2B: more common than we think? Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:293–301. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Oatley JM, Brinster RL. Regulation of spermatogonial stem cell self-renewal in mammals. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2008;24:263–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Amir RE, et al. Rett syndrome is caused by mutations in X-linked MECP2, encoding methyl-CpG-binding protein 2. Nat Genet. 1999;23:185–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

58. Bird A. The methyl-CpG-binding protein MeCP2 and neurological disease. Biochem Soc Trans. 2008;36:575–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Percy AK, et al. Rett syndrome: North American database. J Child Neurol. 2007;22:1338–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Trappe R, et al. MECP2 mutations in sporadic cases of Rett syndrome are almost exclusively of paternal origin. Am J Hum Genet. 2001;68:1093–101. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

61. Malter HE, et al. Characterization of the full fragile-X-syndrome mutation in fetal gametes. Nature Genetics. 1997;15:165–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Moutou C, Vincent MC, Biancalana V, Mandel JL. Transition from premutation to full mutation in fragile X syndrome is likely to be prezygotic. Hum Mol Genet. 1997;6:971–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

63. Temmerman ND, et al. Intergenerational Instability of the Expanded CTG Repeat in the DMPK Gene: Studies in Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos. 2004;75:325–329. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. Moseley ML, et al. SCA8 CTG repeat: en masse contractions in sperm and intergenerational sequence changes may play a role in reduced penetrance. Hum Mol Genet. 2000;9:2125–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. Silveira I, et al. High germinal instability of the (CTG)n at the SCA8 locus of both expanded and normal alleles. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66:830–40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. De Michele G, et al. Parental gender, age at birth and expansion length influence GAA repeat intergenerational instability in the X25 gene: pedigree studies and analysis of sperm from patients with Friedreich's ataxia. Hum Mol Genet. 1998;7:1901–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

67. Delatycki MB, et al. Sperm DNA analysis in a Friedreich ataxia premutation carrier suggests both meiotic and mitotic expansion in the FRDA gene. J Med Genet. 1998;35:713–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

68. Salat U, Bardoni B, Wohrle D, Steinbach P. Increase of FMRP expression, raised levels of FMR1 mRNA, and clonal selection in proliferating cells with unmethylated fragile X repeat expansions: a clue to the sex bias in the transmission of full mutations? J Med Genet. 2000;37:842–50. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

69. Hulten MA, et al. On the origin of trisomy 21 Down syndrome. Mol Cytogenet. 2008;1:21. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

70. Hastings IM. Germline selection: population genetic aspects of the sexual/asexual life cycle. Genetics. 1991;129:1167–76. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

71. Smith NG, Webster MT, Ellegren H. Deterministic mutation rate variation in the human genome. Genome Res. 2002;12:1350–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

72. Hellmann I, et al. Why do human diversity levels vary at a megabase scale? Genome Res. 2005;15:1222–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

73. Ellegren H, Smith NG, Webster MT. Mutation rate variation in the mammalian genome. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2003;13:562–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

74. Green P, Ewing B, Miller W, Thomas PJ, Green ED. Transcription-associated mutational asymmetry in mammalian evolution. Nat Genet. 2003;33:514–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

75. Touchon M, Arneodo A, d'Aubenton-Carafa Y, Thermes C. Transcription-coupled and splicing-coupled strand asymmetries in eukaryotic genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:4969–78. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

76. Hanawalt PC, Spivak G. Transcription-coupled DNA repair: two decades of progress and surprises. 2008;9:958–970. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

77. Polak P, Arndt PF. Transcription induces strand-specific mutations at the 5' end of human genes. Genome Res. 2008;18:1216–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

78. Majewski J. Dependence of mutational asymmetry on gene-expression levels in the human genome. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;73:688–92. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

79. Webster MT, Smith NG, Lercher MJ, Ellegren H. Gene expression, synteny, and local similarity in human noncoding mutation rates. Mol Biol Evol. 2004;21:1820–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

80. Anagnostopoulos T, Green PM, Rowley G, Lewis CM, Giannelli F. DNA variation in a 5-Mb region of the X chromosome and estimates of sex-specific/type-specific mutation rates. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;64:508–17. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

81. Krawczak M, Ball EV, Cooper DN. Neighboring-nucleotide effects on the rates of germ-line single-base-pair substitution in human genes. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;63:474–88. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

82. Cooper DN, Krawczak M. The mutational spectrum of single base-pair substitutions causing human genetic disease: patterns and predictions. Hum Genet. 1990;85:55–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

83. Hwang DG, Green P. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sequence analysis reveals varying neutral substitution patterns in mammalian evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:13994–4001. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

84. Arndt PF, Hwa T. Identification and measurement of neighbor-dependent nucleotide substitution processes. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:2322–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

85. Hess ST, Blake JD, Blake RD. Wide variations in neighbor-dependent substitution rates. J Mol Biol. 1994;236:1022–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

86. Zhao Z, Boerwinkle E. Neighboring-nucleotide effects on single nucleotide polymorphisms: a study of 2.6 million polymorphisms across the human genome. Genome Res. 2002;12:1679–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

87. Hodgkinson A, Ladoukakis E, Eyre-Walker A. Cryptic variation in the human mutation rate. PLoS Biol. 2009;7:e1000027. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

88. Jeffreys AJ, Neumann R. Reciprocal crossover asymmetry and meiotic drive in a human recombination hot spot. Nat Genet. 2002;31:267–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

89. Duret L, Arndt PF. The impact of recombination on nucleotide substitutions in the human genome. PLoS Genet. 2008;4:e1000071. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

90. Hardison RC, et al. Covariation in frequencies of substitution, deletion, transposition, and recombination during eutherian evolution. Genome Res. 2003;13:13–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

91. Walser JC, Ponger L, Furano AV. CpG dinucleotides and the mutation rate of non-CpG DNA. Genome Res. 2008;18:1403–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

92. Lercher MJ, Hurst LD. Human SNP variability and mutation rate are higher in regions of high recombination. Trends Genet. 2002;18:337–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

93. Myers S, et al. The distribution and causes of meiotic recombination in the human genome. Biochem Soc Trans. 2006;34:526–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

94. Spencer CC, et al. The influence of recombination on human genetic diversity. PLoS Genet. 2006;2:e148. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

95. Arnheim N, Calabrese P, Tiemann-Boege I. Mammalian meiotic recombination hot spots. Annu Rev Genet. 2007;41:369–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

96. Tyekucheva S, et al. Human-macaque comparisons illuminate variation in neutral substitution rates. Genome Biol. 2008;9:R76. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

97. Tian D, et al. Single-nucleotide mutation rate increases close to insertions/deletions in eukaryotes. Nature. 2008;455:105–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

98. Honma M, et al. Non-homologous end-joining for repairing I-SceI-induced DNA double strand breaks in human cells. DNA Repair. 2007;6:781–788. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

99. Rattray AJ, Shafer BK, McGill CB, Strathern JN. The roles of REV3 and RAD57 in double-strand-break-repair-induced mutagenesis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics. 2002;162:1063–77. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

100. Prendergast JG, et al. Chromatin structure and evolution in the human genome. BMC Evol Biol. 2007;7:72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

101. Haldane JBS. The mutation rate of the gene for haemophilia and its segregation ratios in males and females. Ann. Eugen. 1947;13:262–271. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

102. Hurst LD, Ellegren H. Sex biases in the mutation rate. Trends Genet. 1998;14:446–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

103. Glaser RL, Jabs EW. Dear old dad. Sci Aging Knowledge Environ. 2004;2004:re1. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

104. Li WH, Yi S, Makova K. Male-driven evolution. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002;12:650–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

105. Ellegren H. Characteristics, causes and evolutionary consequences of male-biased mutation. Proc Biol Sci. 2007;274:1–10. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

106. Grimm T, et al. On the origin of deletions and point mutations in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: most deletions arise in oogenesis and most point mutations result from events in spermatogenesis. J Med Genet. 1994;31:183–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

107. Becker J, et al. Characterization of the factor VIII defect in 147 patients with sporadic hemophilia A: family studies indicate a mutation type-dependent sex ratio of mutation frequencies. Am J Hum Genet. 1996;58:657–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

108. Rossiter JP, et al. Factor VIII gene inversions causing severe hemophilia A originate almost exclusively in male germ cells. Hum Mol Genet. 1994;3:1035–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

109. Kluwe L, et al. The parental origin of new mutations in neurofibromatosis 2. Neurogenetics. 2000;3:17–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

110. Sommer SS, Scaringe WA, Hill KA. Human germline mutation in the factor IX gene. Mutat Res. 2001;487:1–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

111. Zlotogora J. Germ line mosaicism. Hum Genet. 1998;102:381–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

112. Youssoufian H, Pyeritz RE. Mechanisms and consequences of somatic mosaicism in humans. Nat Rev Genet. 2002;3:748–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

113. Erickson RP. Somatic gene mutation and human disease other than cancer. Mutat Res. 2003;543:125–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

114. Hall JG. Review and hypotheses: somatic mosaicism: observations related to clinical genetics. Am J Hum Genet. 1988;43:355–63. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

115. Sippel KC, et al. Frequency of somatic and germ-line mosaicism in retinoblastoma: implications for genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62:610–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

116. Leuer M, et al. Somatic mosaicism in hemophilia A: a fairly common event. Am J Hum Genet. 2001;69:75–87. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

117. Evans DG, et al. Mosaicism in neurofibromatosis type 2: an update of risk based on uni/bilaterality of vestibular schwannoma at presentation and sensitive mutation analysis including multiple ligation-dependent probe amplification. J Med Genet. 2007;44:424–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

118. Kehrer-Sawatzki H, Cooper DN. Mosaicism in sporadic neurofibromatosis type 1: variations on a theme common to other hereditary cancer syndromes? J Med Genet. 2008;45:622–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

119. Winn RN, et al. Transgenic lambda medaka as a new model for germ cell mutagenesis. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2008;49:173–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

120. Dubrova YE, Plumb M, Gutierrez B, Boulton E, Jeffreys AJ. Transgenerational mutation by radiation. Nature. 2000;405:37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

121. Dubrova YE. Radiation-induced transgenerational instability. Oncogene. 2003;22:7087–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

122. Makova KD, Li WH. Strong male-driven evolution of DNA sequences in humans and apes. Nature. 2002;416:624–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

123. Miyata T, Hayashida H, Kuma K, Mitsuyasu K, Yasunaga T. Male-driven molecular evolution: a model and nucleotide sequence analysis. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1987;52:863–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

124. Taylor J, Tyekucheva S, Zody M, Chiaromonte F, Makova KD. Strong and weak male mutation bias at different sites in the primate genomes: insights from the human-chimpanzee comparison. Mol Biol Evol. 2006;23:565–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

125. Drost JB, Lee WR. Biological basis of germline mutation: comparisons of spontaneous germline mutation rates among drosophila, mouse, and human. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1995;25:48–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

126. Shen JC, Rideout WM, 3rd, Jones PA. The rate of hydrolytic deamination of 5-methylcytosine in double-stranded DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994;22:972–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

127. Trasler JM. Gamete imprinting: setting epigenetic patterns for the next generation. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2006;18:63–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

128. Lees-Murdock DJ, Walsh CP. DNA methylation reprogramming in the germ line. Epigenetics. 2008;3:5–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

129. Eckhardt F, et al. DNA methylation profiling of human chromosomes 6, 20 and 22. Nat Genet. 2006;38:1378–85. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

130. El-Maarri O, et al. Methylation levels at selected CpG sites in the factor VIII and FGFR3 genes, in mature female and male germ cells: implications for male- driven evolution. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;63:1001–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

131. Morgan HD, Dean W, Coker HA, Reik W, Petersen-Mahrt SK. Activation-induced Cytidine Deaminase Deaminates 5-Methylcytosine in DNA and Is Expressed in Pluripotent Tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 2004;279:52353–52360. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

132. Schreck S, et al. Activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID) is expressed in normal spermatogenesis but only infrequently in testicular germ cell tumours. J Pathol. 2006;210:26–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

133. Bransteitter R, Pham P, Scharff MD, Goodman MF. Activation-induced cytidine deaminase deaminates deoxycytidine on single-stranded DNA but requires the action of RNase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:4102–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

134. Olsen A-K, Lindeman B, Wiger R, Duale N, Brunborg G. How do male germ cells handle DNA damage?. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Living in a Safe Chemical World. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Toxicology; Tampere, Finland. 11-15 July, 2004.2005. pp. 521–531. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

135. Jaroudi S, SenGupta S. DNA repair in mammalian embryos. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research. 2007;635:53–77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

136. Menezo Y, Jr., Russo G, Tosti E, El Mouatassim S, Benkhalifa M. Expression profile of genes coding for DNA repair in human oocytes using pangenomic microarrays, with a special focus on ROS linked decays. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24:513–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

137. Intano GW, et al. Base Excision Repair Is Limited by Different Proteins in Male Germ Cell Nuclear Extracts Prepared from Young and Old Mice. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2002;22:2410–2418. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

138. Xu G, et al. Nucleotide Excision Repair Activity Varies Among Murine Spermatogenic Cell Types. Biol Reprod. 2005;73:123–130. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

139. Cortazar D, Kunz C, Saito Y, Steinacher R, Schar P. The enigmatic thymine DNA glycosylase. DNA Repair (Amst) 2007;6:489–504. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

140. Schroering AG, Edelbrock MA, Richards TJ, Williams KJ. The cell cycle and DNA mismatch repair. Experimental Cell Research. 2007;313:292–304. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

141. Hardeland U, Kunz C, Focke F, Szadkowski M, Schar P. Cell cycle regulation as a mechanism for functional separation of the apparently redundant uracil DNA glycosylases TDG and UNG2. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:3859–67. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

142. Crow JF. Spontaneous mutation in man. Mutat Res. 1999;437:5–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

143. Risch N, Reich EW, Wishnick MM, McCarthy JG. Spontaneous mutation and parental age in humans. Am J Hum Genet. 1987;41:218–48. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

144. Ketterling RP, et al. Germline origins in the human F9 gene: frequent G:C-->A:T mosaicism and increased mutations with advanced maternal age. Hum Genet. 1999;105:629–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

145. Wilkie AO. Bad bones, absent smell, selfish testes: the pleiotropic consequences of human FGF receptor mutations. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2005;16:187–203. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

146. Edghill EL, et al. Origin of de novo KCNJ11 mutations and risk of neonatal diabetes for subsequent siblings. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92:1773–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

147. Kubota H, Brinster RL. Culture of rodent spermatogonial stem cells, male germline stem cells of the postnatal animal. Methods Cell Biol. 2008;86:59–84. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

148. McLean DJ. Spermatogonial stem cell transplantation, testicular function, and restoration of male fertility in mice. Methods Mol Biol. 2008;450:149–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

149. Falciatori I, Lillard-Wetherell K, Wu Z, Hamra FK, Garbers DL. Deriving mouse spermatogonial stem cell lines. Methods Mol Biol. 2008;450:181–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

150. Walsh CP, Xu GL. Cytosine methylation and DNA repair. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2006;301:283–315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

151. Klose RJ, Bird AP. Genomic DNA methylation: the mark and its mediators. Trends in Biochemical Sciences. 2006;31:89–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Page 2

Are mutations in other genes subject to germline selection?

Relevant references are given in the main text. FGFR2 and FGFR3-members of the fibroblast growth factor receptor family. RET-rearranged during transfection protooncogene. MEN2B-Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia type 2B. MECP2-member of the methyl-CpG-binding protein family.