Why are inversions defined as the reverse complement and not just the reverse of the reference?

Question

I can’t quite understand the way inversions are defined. In particular I expect an inversion to be only a reversed version of the reference and not its reverse complement. Most sources use diagrams such as below which totally obscure the fact that it is also complemented.

Could someone provide an explanation on what causes an inversion and why it is defined the way it is?

score 5 · Accepted Answer · answered Oct 21 '17 at 13:42

5

If an inversion were just reversed then there would be 3' -> 3' bonds and 5' -> 5' bonds. That's why inversions are reverse complemented, you then maintain the normal 5'->3' direction. This is nicely covered over on our biology sister site, which also includes this image:

DNA inversion

answered Oct 21 '17 at 13:42

Devon Ryan

19,602
2
29
60

Thanks for the link. The image you posted made it clear for me. The key is to look at both strands at the same time. – Paghillect Oct 21 '17 at 20:55

Why are inversions defined as the reverse complement and not just the reverse of the reference?

1 Answers1