Skip to main content
. 2004 Aug 24;32(15):4539–4549. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh778

Table 1. Comparison of V-D SJs.

  WT Core RAG1 Core RAG2
Vβ14-Dβ1      
 Precise joints 43/48 (90%) 40/49 (82%) 29/47 (62%)
 Imprecise joints 5/48 (10%) 9/49 (18%) 18/47** (38%)a
  N addition 5/5 (100%) 9/9 (100%) 15/18 (83%)
  Coding sequences 0/5 (0%) 0/9 (0%) 3/18 (17%)
  Deletion 0/5 (0%) 0/9 (0%) 3/18 (17%)
  Microhomology 0/5 (0%) 0/9 (0%) 2/18 (11%)
Vβ8.3-Dβ1      
 Precise joints 47/50 (94%) 42/49 (86%) 32/48 (67%)
 Imprecise joints 3/50 (6%) 7/49 (14%) 16/48** (33%)a
  N addition 3/3 (100%) 7/7 (100%) 15/16 (94%)
  Coding sequences 0/3 (0%) 0/7 (0%) 8/16 (50%)
  Deletion 0/3 (0%) 0/7 (0%) 12/16 (75%)
  Microhomology 0/3 (0%) 0/7 (0%) 0/16 (0%)
Vδ5-Dδ2      
 Precise joints 55/66 (83%) 54/67 (81%) 15/56 (27%)
 Imprecise joints 11/66 (17%) 13/67 (19%) 41/56** (73%)a
  N addition 11/11 (100%) 13/13 (100%) 23/41 (56%)
  Coding sequences 0/11 (0%) 1/13 (8%) 1/41 (2%)
  Deletion 0/11 (0%) 0/13 (0%) 37/41 (90%)
  Microhomology 0/11 (0%) 0/13 (0%) 13/41 (32%)

Number of each joint out of total number analyzed was shown. The frequency of each joint is shown in parentheses. Significant differences versus WT mice, when compared by chi-squared test, are indicated by ** (P < 0.01). Junctions were sequences from two independent animals, and the results were combined to calculate the number of each case.

aDifferences from WT mice are still statistically significant even when the data containing coding sequences are excluded, to exclude possible non-12/23 HJ from SJ (see Discussion).