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

Topologically associating domains and the evolution of three-dimensional genome architecture in rice

We examined the nature and evolution of three-dimensional (3D) genome conformation, including topologically associating domains (TADs), in five genomes within the genus Oryza. These included three varieties from subspecies within domesticated Asian rice O. sativa as well as their closely related wild relatives O. rufipogon and O. meridionalis. We used the high-resolution chromosome conformation capture technique Micro-C, which we modified for use in rice. Our analysis of rice TADs shows that TAD boundaries have high transcriptional activity, low methylation levels, low transposable element (TE) content, and increased gene density. We also find a significant correlation of expression levels for genes within TADs, suggesting that they do function as genomic domains with shared regulatory features. Our findings indicate that animal and plant TADs may share more commonalities than were initially thought, as evidenced by similar genetic and epigenetic signatures associated with TADs and boundaries. To examine 3D genome divergence, we employed a computer vision-based algorithm for the comparison of chromatin contact maps and complemented this analysis by assessing the evolutionary conservation of individual TADs and their boundaries. We conclude that overall chromatin organization is conserved in rice, and 3D structural divergence correlates with evolutionary distance between genomes. We also note that individual TADs are not well conserved, even at short evolutionary timescales.

The homie insulator has sub-elements with different insulating and long-range pairing properties

Chromatin insulators are major determinants of chromosome architecture. Specific architectures induced by insulators profoundly influence nuclear processes, including how enhancers and promoters interact over long distances and between homologous chromosomes. Insulators can pair with copies of themselves in trans to facilitate homolog pairing. They can also pair with other insulators, sometimes with great specificity, inducing long-range chromosomal loops. Contrary to their canonical function of enhancer blocking, these loops can bring distant enhancers and promoters together to activate gene expression, while at the same time blocking other interactions in cis. The details of these effects depend on the choice of pairing partner, and on the orientation specificity of pairing, implicating the 3D architecture as a major functional determinant. Here, we dissect the homie insulator from the Drosophila even skipped (eve) locus, to understand its substructure. We test pairing function based on homie-carrying transgenes interacting with endogenous eve. The assay is sensitive to both pairing strength and orientation. Using this assay, we found that a Su(Hw) binding site in homie is required for efficient long-range interaction, although some activity remains without it. This binding site also contributes to the canonical insulator activities of enhancer blocking and barrier function. Based on this and other results from our functional dissection, each of the canonical insulator activities, chromosomal loop formation, enhancer blocking, and barrier activity, are partially separable. Our results show the complexity inherent in insulator functions, which can be provided by an array of different proteins with both shared and distinct properties.

Principles of long-range gene regulation

Transcription from gene promoters occurs in specific spatiotemporal patterns in multicellular organisms, controlled by genomic regulatory elements. The communication between a regulatory element and a promoter requires a certain degree of physical proximity between them; hence, most gene regulation occurs locally in the genome. However, recent discoveries have revealed long-range gene regulation strategies that enhance interactions between regulatory elements and promoters by overcoming the distances between them in the linear genome. These new findings challenge the traditional view of how gene expression patterns are controlled. This review examines long-range gene regulation strategies recently reported in Drosophila and mammals, offering insights into their mechanisms and evolution.

Chromatin domains in the cell: Phase separation and condensation

Negatively charged genomic DNA wraps around positively charged core histone octamers to form nucleosomes, which, along with proteins and RNAs, self-organize into chromatin within the nucleus. In eukaryotic cells, chromatin forms loops that collapse into chromatin domains and serve as functional units of the genome. Chromatin domains vary in physical properties based on gene activity and are assembled into A (euchromatin) and B (heterochromatin) compartments. Since various factors-such as chromatin-binding proteins, histone modifications, transcriptional states, depletion attraction, and cations-can significantly impact chromatin organization, the formation processes of these hierarchical structures remain unclear. No single imaging, genomics, or modeling method can provide a complete picture of the process. Beautiful models can sometimes fool our thinking. In this short review, we critically discuss the formation mechanisms of the chromatin domain in the cell from a physical point of view, including phase separation and condensation.

A unified model for cohesin function in sisterchromatid cohesion and chromatin loop formation

The ring-shaped cohesin complex topologically entraps two DNAs to establish sister chromatid cohesion. Cohesin also shapes the interphase chromatin landscape by forming DNA loops, which it is thought to achieve using an in vitro-observed loop extrusion mechanism. However, recent studies revealed that loop-extrusion-deficient cohesin retains its ability to form chromatin loops, suggesting a divergence of in vitro and in vivo loop formation. Instead of loop extrusion, we examine whether cohesin forms chromatin loops by a mechanism akin to sister chromatid cohesion establishment: sequential topological capture of two DNAs. We explore similarities and differences between the "loop capture" and the "loop extrusion" model, how they compare at explaining experimental observations, and how future approaches can delineate their possible respective contributions. We extend our DNA-DNA capture model for cohesin function to related structural maintenance of chromosomes (SMC) family members, condensin, the Smc5-Smc6 complex, and bacterial SMC complexes.

The power of proximity: mechanisms and biological roles of transvection

The phenomenon of transvection, defined as a proximity-dependent interallelic interaction, has been observed in the context of complementation between mutant alleles for numerous Drosophila genes. Cases of transvection-like phenomena have also been observed in other species, including mammals. However, the potential contribution of transvection to wild-type gene regulation and the underlying mechanisms remain uncertain. Here, I review recent evidence demonstrating the relevance of transvection in physiological contexts. These findings suggest that transvection represents an additional layer of gene regulation that allows cells to fine-tune gene expression based on the proximity of homologous alleles. In addition, recent studies have measured the physical distance between interacting alleles, revealing unexpectedly large and variable distances. I will discuss how these distances are compatible with the 'hub' model of transcriptional regulation.

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

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. 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 to require loop extrusion.

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

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 orientation), and homie forward (same orientation 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 triangle peak is converted to a pair of 'clouds' 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.