4.8 Article

Comparative Hi-C Reveals that CTCF Underlies Evolution of Chromosomal Domain Architecture

Journal

CELL REPORTS
Volume 10, Issue 8, Pages 1297-1309

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.02.004

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council UK [G0900491/1, G1001649]
  2. EPIGENESYS EU NoE
  3. Cancer Research UK
  4. Wellcome Trust [106985/Z/15/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  5. MRC [G1001649, G0900491] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Cancer Research UK [15603, 20412] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [G0900491, G1001649] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Wellcome Trust [106985/Z/15/Z] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Topological domains are key architectural building blocks of chromosomes, but their functional importance and evolutionary dynamics are not well defined. We performed comparative high-throughput chromosome conformation capture ( Hi-C) in four mammals and characterized the conservation and divergence of chromosomal contact insulation and the resulting domain architectures within distantly related genomes. We show that the modular organization of chromosomes is robustly conserved in syntenic regions and that this is compatible with conservation of the binding landscape of the insulator protein CTCF. Specifically, conserved CTCF sites are co-localized with cohesin, are enriched at strong topological domain borders, and bind to DNA motifs with orientations that define the directionality of CTCF's long-range interactions. Conversely, divergent CTCF binding between species is correlated with divergence of internal domain structure, likely driven by local CTCF binding sequence changes, demonstrating how genome evolution can be linked to a continuous flux of local conformation changes. We also show that large-scale domains are reorganized during genome evolution as intact modules.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available