4.7 Article

Gain of CTCF-Anchored Chromatin Loops Marks the Exit from Naive Pluripotency

期刊

CELL SYSTEMS
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 482-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cels.2018.09.003

关键词

-

资金

  1. EMBL
  2. US National Institutes of Health (NIH) through the 4D Nucleome (4DN) common fund [U01 EB021223, U01 DA047728]
  3. UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [BB/M004023/1, BB/G015678/1]
  4. Wellcome Trust
  5. UK Medical Research Council (MRC) [203151/Z/16/Z, 097922/Z/11/Z]
  6. European Commission Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) through the collaborative research project RADIANT [305626]
  7. EMBL Interdisciplinary Postdoc (EIPOD) fellowship under Marie Curie Actions COFUND
  8. EMBL International PhD Programme (EIPP)
  9. BBSRC [BB/G015678/1, BB/M004023/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genome of pluripotent stem cells adopts a unique three-dimensional architecture featuring weakly condensed heterochromatin and large nucleo-some-free regions. Yet, it is unknown whether structural loops and contact domains display characteristics that distinguish embryonic stem cells (ESCs) from differentiated cell types. We used genome-wide chromosome conformation capture and super-resolution imaging to determine nuclear organization in mouse ESC and neural stem cell (NSC) derivatives. We found that loss of pluripotency is accompanied by widespread gain of structural loops. This general architectural change correlates with enhanced binding of CTCF and cohesins and more pronounced insulation of contacts across chromatin boundaries in lineage-committed cells. Reprogramming NSCs to pluripotency restores the unique features of ESC domain topology. Domains defined by the anchors of loops established upon differentiation are enriched for developmental genes. Chromatin loop formation is a pervasive structural alteration to the genome that accompanies exit from pluripotency and delineates the spatial segregation of developmentally regulated genes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据