text: user122: 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?
  
  user77: 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:
  
  
original_text: 122: <p>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.</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/l6xbU.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/l6xbU.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
  
  <p>Could someone provide an explanation on what causes an inversion and why it is defined the way it is?</p>
   77: <p>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 <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/44550/how-to-read-this-dna-inversion-diagram">over on our biology sister site</a>, which also includes this image:</p>
  
  <p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/ijaLQ.png" alt="DNA inversion"></p>
  