Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Determinants of chromosome organization: Loop extrusion or boundary:boundary pairing?

ABSTRACT: Two different models have been proposed to explain how the endpoints of chromatin looped domains (“TADs”) in eukaryotic chromosomes are determined. In the first a cohesin complex extrudes a loop until it encounters a boundary element roadblock, generating a stem-loop (and an unanchored loop). In this model, boundaries are functionally autonomous: they have an intrinsic ability to halt the movement of incoming cohesin complexes that is independent of the properties of neighboring boundaries. In the second, loops are generated by boundary:boundary pairing. In this model, boundaries are functionally non-autonomous, and their ability to form a loop depends upon how well they match with their neighbors. Moreover, unlike the loop-extrusion model, pairing interactions can generate both stem-loops and circle-loops. We have used a combination of Micro-C to analyze how TADs are organized and experimental manipulations of the even-skipped TAD boundary, homie, to test the predictions of the “loop-extrusion” and the “boundary-pairing” models. Our findings are incompatible with the loop-extrusion model and instead suggest that endpoints of TADs in flies are determined by a mechanism in which boundary elements physically pair with their neighbors, either head-to-head, or head-to-tail.

ORGANISM(S): Drosophila melanogaster

PROVIDER: GSE222999 | GEO | 2024/02/25

REPOSITORIES: GEO

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
		Other

Items per page:

1 - 1 of 1

Similar Datasets

Chromosome structure in Drosophila is determined by boundary pairing not loop extrusion

Project description:Two different models have been proposed to explain how the endpoints of chromatin looped domains (“TADs”) in eukaryotic chromosomes are determined. In the first, a cohesin complex extrudes a loop until it encounters a boundary element roadblock, generating a stem-loop (and an unanchored loop). In this model, boundaries are functionally autonomous: they have an intrinsic ability to halt the movement of incoming cohesin complexes that is independent of the properties of neighboring boundaries. In the second, loops are generated by boundary:boundary pairing. In this model, boundaries are functionally non-autonomous, and their ability to form a loop depends upon how well they match with their neighbors. Moreover, unlike the loop-extrusion model, pairing interactions can generate both stem-loops and circle-loops. We have used a combination of MicroC to analyze how TADs are organized and experimental manipulations of the even skipped TAD boundary, homie, to test the predictions of the “loop-extrusion” and the “boundary-pairing” models. Our findings are incompatible with the loop-extrusion model and instead suggest that the endpoints of TADs in flies are determined by a mechanism in which boundary elements physically pair with their partners, either head-to-head, or head-to-tail, with varying degrees of specificity. Although our experiments do not address how partners find each other, the mechanism is unlikely involve loop extrusion.

2024-04-04 | GSE263229 | GEO

Stem-loop and circle-loop TADs generated by directional pairing of boundary elements have distinct physical and regulatory properties

Project description:The chromosomes in multicellular eukaryotes are organized into a series of topologically independent loops called TADs. In flies, TADs are formed by physical interactions between neighboring boundaries. Fly boundaries exhibit distinct partner preferences, and pairing interactions between boundaries are typically orientation dependent. Pairing can be head-to-tail or head-to-head. The former generates a stem-loop TAD, while the latter gives a circle-loop TAD. The TAD that encompasses the Drosophila even skipped (eve) gene is formed by the head-to-tail pairing of the nhomie and homie boundaries. To explore the relationship between loop topology and the physical and regulatory landscape, we flanked the nhomie boundary region with two attP sites. The attP sites were then used to generate four boundary replacements: λ DNA, nhomie forward (WT orientation), nhomie reverse (opposite of WT), and homie forward (same as WT homie). The nhomie forward replacement restores the WT physical and regulatory landscape: In MicroC experiments, the eve TAD is a volcano triangle topped by a plume, and the eve gene and its regulatory elements are sequestered from interactions with neighbors. The λ DNA replacement lacks boundary function: the endpoint of the “new” eve TAD on the nhomie side is ill-defined, and eve stripe enhancers activate a nearby gene, eIF3j. While nhomie reverse and homie forward restore the eve TAD, the topology is a circle-loop, and this changes the local physical and regulatory landscape. In MicroC experiments, the eve TAD interacts with its neighbors, and the plume at the top of the eve volcano triangle is replaced by a cloud of contacts with the next-door TADs. Consistent with the loss of isolation afforded by the stem-loop topology, the eve enhancers weakly activate genes in the neighboring TADs. Conversely, eve function is partially disrupted.

2024-04-04 | GSE263270 | GEO

Determinants of chromosome organization: Loop extrusion or boundary:boundary pairing?

Project description:Determinants of chromosome organization: Loop extrusion or boundary:boundary pairing?

| PRJNA924678 | ENA

MCM complexes are barriers that restrict loops and TADs

2022-03-07 | GSE155971 | GEO

MCM complexes are barriers that restrict cohesin-mediated loop extrusion [snHi-C]

2022-03-08 | GSE196300 | GEO

Essential role of Cp190 in physical and regulatory boundary formation in Drosophila

Project description:Animal genomes fold into contact domains defined by enhanced internal contact frequencies with debated functions in establishing independent gene regulatory domains. A large fraction of contact domains in mammals are formed by stalling of chromosomal loop-extruding cohesin by CTCF at domain boundaries. 90% of domain boundaries in Drosophila form CTCF-independently, and other proteins were proposed to form chromosomal loops with dual functions of segregating promoters from inappropriate regulatory elements and connecting distal regulatory elements to their correct targets. Here, we genetically ablate the ubiquitous boundary-associated factor Cp190 and assess impacts on genome folding and transcriptional regulation in embryos. Our results reveal that Cp190 is a major factor required for contact domain boundary formation and gene insulation in Drosophila.

2022-05-30 | PXD027795 | Pride

MCM complexes are barriers that restrict cohesin-mediated loop extrusion [RNA-Seq]

Project description:Eukaryotic genomes are compacted into loops and topologically associating domains (TADs), which contribute to transcription, recombination and genomic stability. Cohesin extrudes DNA into loops that are thought to lengthen until CTCF boundaries are encountered. Little is known about whether loop extrusion is impeded by DNA-bound machines. Here we show that the minichromosome maintenance (MCM) complex is a barrier that restricts loop extrusion in G1 phase. Single-nucleus Hi-C of mouse zygotes revealed that MCM loading reduces CTCF-anchored loops and decreases TAD boundary insulation, suggesting loop extrusion is impeded before reaching CTCF. This effect extends to HCT116 cells, where MCMs affect the number of CTCF-anchored loops and gene expression. Simulations suggest that MCMs are abundant, randomly positioned, partially permeable barriers. Single-molecule imaging shows that MCMs are physical barriers that frequently constrain cohesin translocation in vitro. Remarkably, chimaeric yeast MCMs harbouring a cohesin-interaction motif from human MCM3 induce cohesin pausing, suggesting that MCMs are “active” barriers with binding sites. These findings raise the possibility that cohesin can arrive by loop extrusion at MCMs, which determine the genomic sites at which sister chromatid cohesion is established. Based on in vivo, in silico and in vitro data, we conclude that distinct loop extrusion barriers shape the 3D genome.

2022-03-08 | GSE196496 | GEO

Chromosome structure in Drosophila is determined by boundary pairing not loop extrusion

Project description:Chromosome structure in Drosophila is determined by boundary pairing not loop extrusion

| PRJNA1096317 | ENA

In vivo dissection of a clustered-CTCF domain boundary reveals developmental principles of regulatory insulation [ChIPmentation]

Project description:Vertebrate genomes organize into topologically associating domains (TADs), delimited by boundaries that insulate regulatory elements from non-target genes. However, how boundary function is established is not well understood. Here, we combine genome-wide analyses and transgenic mouse assays to dissect the regulatory logic of clustered-CTCF boundaries in vivo, interrogating their function at multiple levels: chromatin interactions, transcription and phenotypes. Individual CTCF binding sites (CBS) deletions revealed that the characteristics of specific sites can outweigh other factors like CBS number and orientation. Combined deletions demonstrated that CBS cooperate redundantly and provide boundary robustness. We show that divergent CBS signatures are not strictly required for effective insulation and that chromatin loops can be formed by non-canonically oriented sites, which suggests a loop interference mechanism. Further, we observe that insulation strength constitutes an effective modulator of gene expression and phenotypes. Our results highlight the modular nature of boundaries and their control over developmental processes.

2022-05-05 | GSE197629 | GEO

In vivo dissection of a clustered-CTCF domain boundary reveals developmental principles of regulatory insulation [Capture-C]

2022-05-05 | GSE169548 | GEO