CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Nuclear Structure and FunctionGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsProtein Structure and Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nucleus size and its effect on nucleosome stability in living cells

Open access
Efremov, Artem K., Hovan, Ladislav, Yan, Jie·2022·Biophysical Journal
DOI 10.1016/j.bpj.2022.09.019PMC PMC9675033

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

DNA architectural proteins play a major role in organization of chromosomal DNA in living cells by packaging it into chromatin, whose spatial conformation is determined by an intricate interplay between the DNA-binding properties of architectural proteins and physical constraints applied to the DNA by a tight nuclear space. Yet, the exact effects of the nucleus size on DNA-protein interactions and chromatin structure currently remain obscure. Furthermore, there is even no clear understanding of molecular mechanisms responsible for the nucleus size regulation in living cells. To find answers to these questions, we developed a general theoretical framework based on a combination of polymer field theory and transfer-matrix calculations, which showed that the nucleus size is mainly determined by the difference between the surface tensions of the nuclear envelope and the endoplasmic reticulum membrane as well as the osmotic pressure exerted by cytosolic macromolecules on the nucleus. In addition, the model demonstrated that the cell nucleus functions as a piezoelectric element, changing its electrostatic potential in a size-dependent manner. This effect has been found to have a profound impact on stability of nucleosomes, revealing a previously unknown link between the nucleus size and chromatin structure. Overall, our study provides new insights into the molecular mechanisms responsible for regulation of the nucleus size, as well as the potential role of nuclear organization in shaping the cell response to environmental cues.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bpj.2022.09.019

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Semiflexible polymer model of chromosomal DNA packaging in the nucleus of a eukaryotic cell. (a) Main protein complexes involved in histone transportation and nucleosome formation. In the model, nucleosomes assemble on DNA from H2A ⋅ H2B and H3⋅ H4 histone dimers, which are transported by histone-binding chaperones schematically indicated as c1 and c2 in the figure. Specifically, by picking up newly synthesized histone dimers in the cell cytoplasm, chaperones switch from an unloaded state (c1 u or c2 u) to a histone-bound state (c1 b or c2 b, respectively). Then, by moving through NPCs, chaperones enter the cell nucleus, where they can deposit histone dimers onto the chromosomal DNA via nucleosome assembly. In addition to histone-binding chaperones, NPCs also allow free diffusion of ions and small metabolites between the cell nucleus and cytosol, helping to maintain the stability of the ionic microenvironment in the nucleoplasm. The bottom part of (a) shows the summary chemical equation of nucleosome assembly, which proceeds in several substeps detailed in (50, 51, 52, 53). (b) Conformations of chromosomes. In the model, conformations of chromosomes are described by triplets of unit vectors, (x^(u)(su), y^(u)(su), z^(u)(su)), u=1,…,Q, with each triplet indicating the orientation of the respective (uth) DNA molecule with reference to the fixed coordinate system, (x0, y0, z0), at a point corresponding to the arc length su∈[0, Lu] along the DNA. Here, Lu is the length of the u^th DNA molecule. (c) Discretized polymer model of DNA. To calculate the partition function, each DNA polymer was represented by a polygonal chain comprised of small straight segments, each of which was treated as a rigid body with an attached local Cartesian coordinate frame, (xj, yj, zj), representing the DNA segment orientation in space with respect to the fixed global coordinate system, (x0, y0, z0).
Figure 1 Semiflexible polymer model of chromosomal DNA packaging in the nucleus of a eukaryotic cell. (a) Main protein complexes involved in histone transportation and nucleosome formation. In the model, nucleosomes assemble on DNA from H2A ⋅ H2B and H3⋅ H4 histone dimers, which are transported by histone-binding chaperones schematically indicated as c1 and c2 in the figure. Specifically, by picking up newly synthesized histone dimers in the cell cytoplasm, chaperones switch from an unloaded state (c1 u or c2 u) to a histone-bound state (c1 b or c2 b, respectively). Then, by moving through NPCs, chaperones enter the cell nucleus, where they can deposit histone dimers onto the chromosomal DNA via nucleosome assembly. In addition to histone-binding chaperones, NPCs also allow free diffusion of ions and small metabolites between the cell nucleus and cytosol, helping to maintain the stability of the ionic microenvironment in the nucleoplasm. The bottom part of (a) shows the summary chemical equation of nucleosome assembly, which proceeds in several substeps detailed in (50, 51, 52, 53). (b) Conformations of chromosomes. In the model, conformations of chromosomes are described by triplets of unit vectors, (x^(u)(su), y^(u)(su), z^(u)(su)), u=1,…,Q, with each triplet indicating the orientation of the respective (uth) DNA molecule with reference to the fixed coordinate system, (x0, y0, z0), at a point corresponding to the arc length su∈[0, Lu] along the DNA. Here, Lu is the length of the u^th DNA molecule. (c) Discretized polymer model of DNA. To calculate the partition function, each DNA polymer was represented by a polygonal chain comprised of small straight segments, each of which was treated as a rigid body with an attached local Cartesian coordinate frame, (xj, yj, zj), representing the DNA segment orientation in space with respect to the fixed global coordinate system, (x0, y0, z0).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 DNA packaging in viral particles. (a) Schematic picture of DNA packaging in a viral particle. Due to the tight capsid space, DNA adopts a coil-like conformation (78, 79, 80, 81, 82). (b) Energy contributions made by DNA (blue curve) and ions (red curve) into the total free energy of a viral particle (black curve) as functions of the capsid size. Data points shown in the graph are the results of transfer-matrix calculations; whereas lines indicate smoothing spline interpolation. Solid curves correspond to the case of a viral DNA that has the bending and twisting persistence lengths corresponding to those of B-DNA: A=50 nm (75,76) and C=95 nm (86, 87, 88), respectively; whereas dashed curves demonstrate results obtained for a freely moving joint polymer chain of the same length but with zero bending and twisting elasticities between the polymer segments. All energy values are shown in the graph up to a nonessential additive constant. (c) Electrostatic and volume-exclusion DNA interaction energies per single DNA basepair as functions of the capsid size. The curves are calculated using Eq. L28 from Online Appendix L. (d and e) Spatial distribution and volume-averaged value of the electrostatic potential in viral particles of different sizes. Each data point shown in (e) corresponds to a curve from (d). The solid line in (e) demonstrates the smoothing spline interpolation of the data points. (f) Pressure generated by DNA and ions on the walls of a viral particle at different capsid sizes. The curves are calculated based on the data shown in (b). The green rectangle indicates the area corresponding to the experimentally measured range in λ-phage particles (83,84). (g and h) The average correlation function between a pair of unit vectors tangent to the DNA backbone and the root mean-square distance (RMSD) between two points located on the DNA as functions of the genomic distance along the DNA. In all computations, the DNA length was 14 μm, which corresponds to the size of EMBL3 λ-phage genome of 41.5 kbp (83). The size of DNA segments in the discretized polymer model was b=3.4 nm.
Figure 2 DNA packaging in viral particles. (a) Schematic picture of DNA packaging in a viral particle. Due to the tight capsid space, DNA adopts a coil-like conformation (78, 79, 80, 81, 82). (b) Energy contributions made by DNA (blue curve) and ions (red curve) into the total free energy of a viral particle (black curve) as functions of the capsid size. Data points shown in the graph are the results of transfer-matrix calculations; whereas lines indicate smoothing spline interpolation. Solid curves correspond to the case of a viral DNA that has the bending and twisting persistence lengths corresponding to those of B-DNA: A=50 nm (75,76) and C=95 nm (86, 87, 88), respectively; whereas dashed curves demonstrate results obtained for a freely moving joint polymer chain of the same length but with zero bending and twisting elasticities between the polymer segments. All energy values are shown in the graph up to a nonessential additive constant. (c) Electrostatic and volume-exclusion DNA interaction energies per single DNA basepair as functions of the capsid size. The curves are calculated using Eq. L28 from Online Appendix L. (d and e) Spatial distribution and volume-averaged value of the electrostatic potential in viral particles of different sizes. Each data point shown in (e) corresponds to a curve from (d). The solid line in (e) demonstrates the smoothing spline interpolation of the data points. (f) Pressure generated by DNA and ions on the walls of a viral particle at different capsid sizes. The curves are calculated based on the data shown in (b). The green rectangle indicates the area corresponding to the experimentally measured range in λ-phage particles (83,84). (g and h) The average correlation function between a pair of unit vectors tangent to the DNA backbone and the root mean-square distance (RMSD) between two points located on the DNA as functions of the genomic distance along the DNA. In all computations, the DNA length was 14 μm, which corresponds to the size of EMBL3 λ-phage genome of 41.5 kbp (83). The size of DNA segments in the discretized polymer model was b=3.4 nm.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Cell nucleus size regulation. (a) Schematic picture of cellular components exerting pressure on the NE. In general, the nucleus size is determined by mechanical equilibrium between the pressures created by DNA (pDNA), ions (pions) and macromolecules (pmacro). In addition, it has been previously suggested that the NE and ER may be involved in a tug-of-war with each other over the shared lipid membrane (1), which can be described in terms of pNE and pER pressures associated with the surface tensions of the NE and ER membrane. (b) Pressures exerted on the NE by DNA, ions, macromolecules, and the surface tensions of the NE and ER membrane as functions of the nucleus size. The yellow curve, which represents the osmotic pressure created by cytosolic macromolecules, is plotted for the case of nmacro=10¹⁰ molecules. The magenta curve demonstrates the net pressure, pNE+pER, generated by Δσ=20 mN/m difference in the surface tensions of the NE and ER membrane; whereas the green dashed curve indicates the equilibrium value of the net pressure, pNE+pER=−pDNA−pions−pmacro (Eq. 10). In the calculations, the total length of DNA was set equal to 2.1 m, which corresponds to the size of the human genome of ∼6.2 Gbp (62). The size of DNA segments in the discretized polymer model was b=3.4 nm. (c) Relative contributions of different cell components to the total positive/negative pressure acting on the NE calculated based on the data shown in (b). Results displayed in (a) and (b) were obtained in the case of a cell with the total volume of Vcell=8000μm3. Smaller cells (Vcell=4000μm3) demonstrate very similar behavior (see Fig. S1). (d) Correlation between the nucleus and cell volumes. Solid curves indicate fitting of experimental data from (19,20,22,25) either to the full model described by Eq. 10 or to the reduced model described by Eq. 11. In the former case, the fitting was done by varying a single model parameter—the difference between the surface tensions of the NE and ER membrane, Δσ; whereas, in the latter case, the linear fitting of the Δσ/ζ ratio shown in (e) was used as an input to Eq. 12. The inset displays a large-scale view of the fitting of the experimental data from (19). (e) Δσ/ζ ratio as a function of the nucleus size. Data points show the values calculated using Eq. 11 based on experimental data presented in (d). Solid lines indicate linear fitting of the data points. The inset demonstrates a large-scale view of the fitting of the data points obtained based on (19).
Figure 3 Cell nucleus size regulation. (a) Schematic picture of cellular components exerting pressure on the NE. In general, the nucleus size is determined by mechanical equilibrium between the pressures created by DNA (pDNA), ions (pions) and macromolecules (pmacro). In addition, it has been previously suggested that the NE and ER may be involved in a tug-of-war with each other over the shared lipid membrane (1), which can be described in terms of pNE and pER pressures associated with the surface tensions of the NE and ER membrane. (b) Pressures exerted on the NE by DNA, ions, macromolecules, and the surface tensions of the NE and ER membrane as functions of the nucleus size. The yellow curve, which represents the osmotic pressure created by cytosolic macromolecules, is plotted for the case of nmacro=10¹⁰ molecules. The magenta curve demonstrates the net pressure, pNE+pER, generated by Δσ=20 mN/m difference in the surface tensions of the NE and ER membrane; whereas the green dashed curve indicates the equilibrium value of the net pressure, pNE+pER=−pDNA−pions−pmacro (Eq. 10). In the calculations, the total length of DNA was set equal to 2.1 m, which corresponds to the size of the human genome of ∼6.2 Gbp (62). The size of DNA segments in the discretized polymer model was b=3.4 nm. (c) Relative contributions of different cell components to the total positive/negative pressure acting on the NE calculated based on the data shown in (b). Results displayed in (a) and (b) were obtained in the case of a cell with the total volume of Vcell=8000μm3. Smaller cells (Vcell=4000μm3) demonstrate very similar behavior (see Fig. S1). (d) Correlation between the nucleus and cell volumes. Solid curves indicate fitting of experimental data from (19,20,22,25) either to the full model described by Eq. 10 or to the reduced model described by Eq. 11. In the former case, the fitting was done by varying a single model parameter—the difference between the surface tensions of the NE and ER membrane, Δσ; whereas, in the latter case, the linear fitting of the Δσ/ζ ratio shown in (e) was used as an input to Eq. 12. The inset displays a large-scale view of the fitting of the experimental data from (19). (e) Δσ/ζ ratio as a function of the nucleus size. Data points show the values calculated using Eq. 11 based on experimental data presented in (d). Solid lines indicate linear fitting of the data points. The inset demonstrates a large-scale view of the fitting of the data points obtained based on (19).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Nuclear electrostatic potential and nucleosome stability as functions of the nucleus size. (a) Distribution of the electrostatic potential in nuclei of different sizes. The plot shows results obtained for a cell with the total volume of Vcell=8000μm3. In smaller cells (Vcell=4000μm3), the nuclear electrostatic potential exhibits a similar distribution (see Fig. S2). (b) Volume-averaged value of the electrostatic potential in nuclei of different sizes. Data points indicate values calculated based on the curves shown in (a) and Fig. S2; whereas solid lines demonstrate smoothing spline interpolation. (c) Occupancy fraction of chromosomal DNA by nucleosomes as a function of the nucleus size. Data points represent results of transfer-matrix calculations; whereas solid lines show smoothing spline interpolation. (d and e) Force-extension and force-DNA occupancy fraction curves obtained by mechanical stretching of a small fragment of chromosomal DNA in nuclei of different sizes. Solid curves in (d) and (e), except for control curves 1 and 2, demonstrate results of transfer-matrix calculations performed for a cell with the total volume of Vcell=8000μm3 (see also Fig. S3 for the Vcell=4000μm3 case). Dashed curves in (d) indicate force-extension curves calculated for an isolated DNA fragment at different values of the binding free energy of histone octamers to DNA in the absence of the nuclear electrostatic potential (49). Control curve 1 shows the result of transfer-matrix calculations in the absence of electrostatic interactions for an infinitely large cell nucleus; whereas control curve 2 depicts transfer-matrix calculations for in vitro experiments performed in ATP-depleted and diluted Xenopus egg extract (49,98). (f) Binding free energy of histone octamers to DNA as a function of the cell nucleus size. The data points were calculated based on the force-extension curves from (d) and Fig. S3a, as specified in the main text. Solid curves indicate prediction of the binding free energy of histone octamers by Eq. 13.
Figure 4 Nuclear electrostatic potential and nucleosome stability as functions of the nucleus size. (a) Distribution of the electrostatic potential in nuclei of different sizes. The plot shows results obtained for a cell with the total volume of Vcell=8000μm3. In smaller cells (Vcell=4000μm3), the nuclear electrostatic potential exhibits a similar distribution (see Fig. S2). (b) Volume-averaged value of the electrostatic potential in nuclei of different sizes. Data points indicate values calculated based on the curves shown in (a) and Fig. S2; whereas solid lines demonstrate smoothing spline interpolation. (c) Occupancy fraction of chromosomal DNA by nucleosomes as a function of the nucleus size. Data points represent results of transfer-matrix calculations; whereas solid lines show smoothing spline interpolation. (d and e) Force-extension and force-DNA occupancy fraction curves obtained by mechanical stretching of a small fragment of chromosomal DNA in nuclei of different sizes. Solid curves in (d) and (e), except for control curves 1 and 2, demonstrate results of transfer-matrix calculations performed for a cell with the total volume of Vcell=8000μm3 (see also Fig. S3 for the Vcell=4000μm3 case). Dashed curves in (d) indicate force-extension curves calculated for an isolated DNA fragment at different values of the binding free energy of histone octamers to DNA in the absence of the nuclear electrostatic potential (49). Control curve 1 shows the result of transfer-matrix calculations in the absence of electrostatic interactions for an infinitely large cell nucleus; whereas control curve 2 depicts transfer-matrix calculations for in vitro experiments performed in ATP-depleted and diluted Xenopus egg extract (49,98). (f) Binding free energy of histone octamers to DNA as a function of the cell nucleus size. The data points were calculated based on the force-extension curves from (d) and Fig. S3a, as specified in the main text. Solid curves indicate prediction of the binding free energy of histone octamers by Eq. 13.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Effect of the electrical charge of chaperones on the binding free energy of histone octamers to DNA. The plot demonstrates the results of calculations based on Eq. 13, performed for various electrical charges of histone-binding chaperones. For the sake of simplicity, it was assumed in the calculations that H2A ⋅ H2B-binding chaperones (c1), as well as H3 ⋅ H4-binding chaperones (c2), have the same electrical charges: qc1u=qc2u. The dashed curve shown in the graph indicates the model prediction based on the electrical charges of the chaperones estimated from the nucleocytoplasmic distribution of chaperone-transported histone dimers in HeLa cells (see Online Appendix A).
Figure 5 Effect of the electrical charge of chaperones on the binding free energy of histone octamers to DNA. The plot demonstrates the results of calculations based on Eq. 13, performed for various electrical charges of histone-binding chaperones. For the sake of simplicity, it was assumed in the calculations that H2A ⋅ H2B-binding chaperones (c1), as well as H3 ⋅ H4-binding chaperones (c2), have the same electrical charges: qc1u=qc2u. The dashed curve shown in the graph indicates the model prediction based on the electrical charges of the chaperones estimated from the nucleocytoplasmic distribution of chaperone-transported histone dimers in HeLa cells (see Online Appendix A).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 112

  1. Webster, 2009, Sizing up the nucleus: nuclear shape, size and nuclear-envelope assembly, J. Cell Sci., 122, 1477, 10.1242/jcs.037333 · DOI
  2. Jevtić, 2014, Sizing and shaping the nucleus: mechanisms and significance, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol., 28, 16, 10.1016/j.ceb.2014.01.003 · DOI
  3. Walters, 2012, Shaping the nucleus: factors and forces, J. Cell. Biochem., 113, 2813, 10.1002/jcb.24178 · DOI
  4. Mukherjee, 2016, Recent advances in understanding nuclear size and shape, Nucleus, 7, 167, 10.1080/19491034.2016.1162933 · DOI
  5. Cantwell, 2019, Unravelling nuclear size control, Curr. Genet., 65, 1281, 10.1007/s00294-019-00999-3 · DOI
  6. Martinov, 1999, Volume stabilization in human erythrocytes: combined effects of Ca2+-dependent potassium channels and adenylate metabolism, Biophys. Chem., 80, 199, 10.1016/S0301-4622(99)00079-4 · DOI
  7. Kay, 2017, How cells can control their size by pumping ions, Front. Cell Dev. Biol., 5, 41, 10.3389/fcell.2017.00041 · DOI
  8. Dahl, 2004, The nuclear envelope lamina network has elasticity and a compressibility limit suggestive of a molecular shock absorber, J. Cell Sci., 117, 4779, 10.1242/jcs.01357 · DOI
  9. Mazumder, 2008, Dynamics of chromatin decondensation reveals the structural integrity of a mechanically prestressed nucleus, Biophys. J., 95, 3028, 10.1529/biophysj.108.132274 · DOI
  10. Finan, 2009, Nonlinear osmotic properties of the cell nucleus, Ann. Biomed. Eng., 37, 477, 10.1007/s10439-008-9618-5 · DOI
  11. Stephens, 2017, Chromatin and lamin A determine two different mechanical response regimes of the cell nucleus, Mol. Biol. Cell, 28, 1984, 10.1091/mbc.e16-09-0653 · DOI
  12. Aebi, 1986, The nuclear lamina is a meshwork of intermediate-type filaments, Nature, 323, 560, 10.1038/323560a0 · DOI
  13. Newport, 1990, A lamin-independent pathway for nuclear envelope assembly, J. Cell Biol., 111, 2247, 10.1083/jcb.111.6.2247 · DOI
  14. Yang, 1997, Lamin-binding fragment of LAP2 inhibits increase in nuclear volume during the cell cycle and progression into S phase, J. Cell Biol., 139, 1077, 10.1083/jcb.139.5.1077 · DOI
  15. Goldberg, 2008, Filaments made from A- and B-type lamins differ in structure and organization, J. Cell Sci., 121, 215, 10.1242/jcs.022020 · DOI
  16. Anderson, 2008, Reshaping of the endoplasmic reticulum limits the rate for nuclear envelope formation, J. Cell Biol., 182, 911, 10.1083/jcb.200805140 · DOI
  17. Lu, 2012, Nesprin interchain associations control nuclear size, Cell. Mol. Life Sci., 69, 3493, 10.1007/s00018-012-1034-1 · DOI
  18. Price, 1973, Correlations between nuclear volume, cell volume and DNA content in meristematic cells of herbaceous angiosperms, Experientia, 29, 1028, 10.1007/BF01930444 · DOI
  19. Swanson, 1991, Cellular dimensions affecting the nucleocytoplasmic volume ratio, J. Cell Biol., 115, 941, 10.1083/jcb.115.4.941 · DOI
  20. Neumann, 2007, Nuclear size control in fission yeast, J. Cell Biol., 179, 593, 10.1083/jcb.200708054 · DOI
  21. Guo, 2017, Cell volume change through water efflux impacts cell stiffness and stem cell fate, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, E8618, 10.1073/pnas.1705179114 · DOI
  22. Delpire, 1985, Effects of osmotic shocks on the ultrastructure of different tissues and cell types, Exp. Cell Res., 160, 106, 10.1016/0014-4827(85)90240-X · DOI
  23. Hancock, 2004, A role for macromolecular crowding effects in the assembly and function of compartments in the nucleus, J. Struct. Biol., 146, 281, 10.1016/j.jsb.2003.12.008 · DOI
  24. Irianto, 2013, Osmotic challenge drives rapid and reversible chromatin condensation in chondrocytes, Biophys. J., 104, 759, 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.01.006 · DOI
  25. Damodaran, 2018, Compressive force induces reversible chromatin condensation and cell geometry-dependent transcriptional response, Mol. Biol. Cell, 29, 3039, 10.1091/mbc.E18-04-0256 · DOI
  26. Harris, 1967, The reactivation of the red cell nucleus, J. Cell Sci., 2, 23, 10.1242/jcs.2.1.23 · DOI
  27. Sato, 1994, Transcription and motoneuron size, J. Neurochem., 63, 1609, 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1994.63051609.x · DOI
  28. Solovei, 2009, Nuclear architecture of rod photoreceptor cells adapts to vision in mammalian evolution, Cell, 137, 356, 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.052 · DOI
  29. Sachs, 1995, A random-walk/giant-loop model for interphase chromosomes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 92, 2710, 10.1073/pnas.92.7.2710 · DOI
  30. Rosa, 2008, Structure and dynamics of interphase chromosomes, PLoS Comput. Biol., 4, e1000153, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000153 · DOI
  31. Lieberman-Aiden, 2009, Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome, Science, 326, 289, 10.1126/science.1181369 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Kim, 2011, Crowding-induced structural alterations of random-loop chromosome model, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, 168102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.168102 · DOI
  33. Mirny, 2011, The fractal globule as a model of chromatin architecture in the cell, Chromosome Res., 19, 37, 10.1007/s10577-010-9177-0 · DOI
  34. Barbieri, 2012, Complexity of chromatin folding is captured by the strings and binders switch model, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 16173, 10.1073/pnas.1204799109 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Benedetti, 2014, Models that include supercoiling of topological domains reproduce several known features of interphase chromosomes, Nucleic Acids Res., 42, 2848, 10.1093/nar/gkt1353 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Chiariello, 2016, Polymer physics of chromosome large-scale 3D organisation, Sci. Rep., 6, 29775, 10.1038/srep29775 · DOI
  37. Pierro, 2016, Transferable model for chromosome architecture, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 12168, 10.1073/pnas.1613607113 · DOI
  38. Pierro, 2017, De novo prediction of human chromosome structures: epigenetic marking patterns encode genome architecture, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 12126, 10.1073/pnas.1714980114 · DOI
  39. Nuebler, 2018, Chromatin organization by an interplay of loop extrusion and compartmental segregation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 115, E6697, 10.1073/pnas.1717730115 · DOI
  40. Knoch, 2019, Simulation of different three-dimensional polymer models of interphase chromosomes compared to experiments – an evaluation and review framework of the 3D genome organization, Semin. Cell Dev. Biol., 90, 19, 10.1016/j.semcdb.2018.07.012 · DOI
  41. Blank, 1995, Electrostatic mechanism of nucleosome spacing, J. Mol. Biol., 252, 305, 10.1006/jmbi.1995.0498 · DOI
  42. Engelhardt, 2004, Condensation of chromatin in situ by cation-dependent charge shielding and aggregation, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 324, 1210, 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.09.175 · DOI
  43. Dahl, 2005, Power-law rheology of isolated nuclei with deformation mapping of nuclear substructures, Biophys. J., 89, 2855, 10.1529/biophysj.105.062554 · DOI
  44. Pajerowski, 2007, Physical plasticity of the nucleus in stem cell differentiation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 15619, 10.1073/pnas.0702576104 · DOI
  45. Allahverdi, 2015, Chromatin compaction under mixed salt conditions: opposite effects of sodium and potassium ions on nucleosome array folding, Sci. Rep., 5, 8512, 10.1038/srep08512 · DOI
  46. Efremov, 2016, Transfer-matrix calculation of DNA polymer micromechanics under tension and torque constraints, Phys. Rev. E, 94, 032404, 10.1103/PhysRevE.94.032404 · DOI
  47. Efremov, 2017, Theoretical methods for studying DNA structural transitions under applied mechanical constraints, Polymers, 9, 74, 10.3390/polym9020074 · DOI
  48. Efremov, 2018, Transfer-matrix calculations of the effects of tension and torque constraints on DNA-protein interactions, Nucleic Acids Res., 46, 6504, 10.1093/nar/gky478 · DOI
  49. Mazurkiewicz, 2006, On the mechanism of nucleosome assembly by histone chaperone NAP1, J. Biol. Chem., 281, 16462, 10.1074/jbc.M511619200 · DOI
  50. Andrews, 2008, A thermodynamic model for Nap1-histone interactions, J. Biol. Chem., 283, 32412, 10.1074/jbc.M805918200 · DOI
  51. Andrews, 2010, The histone chaperone Nap1 promotes nucleosome assembly by eliminating nonnucleosomal histone DNA interactions, Mol. Cell, 37, 834, 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.01.037 · DOI
  52. De Koning, 2007, Histone chaperones: an escort network regulating histone traffic, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 14, 997, 10.1038/nsmb1318 · DOI
  53. Hammond, 2017, Histone chaperone networks shaping chromatin function, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 18, 141, 10.1038/nrm.2016.159 · DOI
  54. Keck, 2012, Histone chaperones link histone nuclear import and chromatin assembly, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1819, 277, 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2011.09.007 · DOI
  55. Lee, 2000, Chondrocyte deformation within compressed agarose constructs at the cellular and sub-cellular levels, J. Biomech., 33, 81, 10.1016/S0021-9290(99)00160-8 · DOI
  56. Century, 1970, The concentrations of water, sodium and potassium in the nucleus and cytoplasm of amphibian oocytes, J. Cell Sci., 7, 5, 10.1242/jcs.7.1.5 · DOI
  57. Oberleithner, 1992, Patchy accumulation of apical Na+ transporters allows cross talk between extracellular space and cell nucleus, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 89, 241, 10.1073/pnas.89.1.241 · DOI
  58. Fazelkhah, 2018, Quantitative model for ion transport and cytoplasm conductivity of Chinese hamster ovary cells, Sci. Rep., 8, 17818, 10.1038/s41598-018-36127-3 · DOI
  59. Luger, 1997, Crystal structure of the nucleosome core particle at 2.8Å resolution, Nature, 389, 251, 10.1038/38444 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Harp, 2000, Asymmetries in the nucleosome core particle at 2.5Å resolution, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D - Biol. Crystallogr., D56, 1513, 10.1107/S0907444900011847 · DOI
  61. McCormack, 2021, Effects of size, cooperativity and competitive binding on protein positioning on DNA, Biophys. J., 120, 2040, 10.1016/j.bpj.2021.03.016 · DOI
  62. Segal, 2006, A genomic code for nucleosome positioning, Nature, 442, 772, 10.1038/nature04979 · DOI
  63. Field, 2008, Distinct modes of regulation by chromatin encoded through nucleosome positioning signals, PLoS Comput. Biol., 4, e1000216, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000216 · DOI
  64. Kaplan, 2009, The DNA-encoded nucleosome organization of a eukaryotic genome, Nature, 458, 362, 10.1038/nature07667 · DOI
  65. Möbius, 2010, Quantitative test of the barrier nucleosome model for statistical positioning of nucleosomes up- and downstream of transcription start sites, PLoS Comput. Biol., 6, e1000891, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000891 · DOI
  66. Beshnova, 2014, Regulation of the nucleosome repeat length in vivo by the DNA sequence, protein concentrations and long-range interactions, PLoS Comput. Biol., 10, e1003698, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003698 · DOI
  67. MacPherson, 2018, Bottom-up modeling of chromatin segregation due to epigenetic modifications, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 115, 12739, 10.1073/pnas.1812268115 · DOI
  68. MacPherson, 2020, Chromatin compaction leads to a preference for peripheral heterochromatin, Biophys. J., 118, 1479, 10.1016/j.bpj.2020.01.034 · DOI
  69. Lagarias, 1998, Convergence properties of the Nelder-Mead simplex method in low dimensions, SIAM J. Optim., 9, 112, 10.1137/S1052623496303470 · DOI
  70. Bustamante, 1994, Entropic elasticity of lambda-phage DNA, Science, 265, 1599, 10.1126/science.8079175 · DOI
  71. Wang, 1997, Stretching DNA with optical tweezers, Biophys. J., 72, 1335, 10.1016/S0006-3495(97)78780-0 · DOI
  72. Kindt, 2001, DNA packaging and ejection forces in bacteriophage, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 98, 13671, 10.1073/pnas.241486298 · DOI
  73. Spakowitz, 2005, DNA packaging in bacteriophage: is twist important?, Biophys. J., 88, 3912, 10.1529/biophysj.104.052738 · DOI
  74. Lander, 2006, The structure of an infectious P22 virion shows the signal for headful DNA packaging, Science, 312, 1791, 10.1126/science.1127981 · DOI
  75. Morrison, 2009, Semiflexible chains in confined spaces, Phys. Rev. E, 79, 011924, 10.1103/PhysRevE.79.011924 · DOI
  76. Liu, 2014, Solid-to-fluid–like DNA transition in viruses facilitates infection, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 14675, 10.1073/pnas.1321637111 · DOI
  77. Evilevitch, 2003, Osmotic pressure inhibition of DNA ejection from phage, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 9292, 10.1073/pnas.1233721100 · DOI
  78. Grayson, 2006, The effect of genome length on ejection forces in bacteriophage lambda, Virology, 348, 430, 10.1016/j.virol.2006.01.003 · DOI
  79. Qiu, 2011, Salt-dependent DNA-DNA spacings in intact bacteriophage λ reflect relative importance of DNA self-repulsion and bending energies, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, 028102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.028102 · DOI
  80. Bryant, 2003, Structural transitions and elasticity from torque measurements on DNA, Nature, 424, 338, 10.1038/nature01810 · DOI
  81. Forth, 2008, Abrupt buckling transition observed during the plectoneme formation of individual DNA molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 148301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.148301 · DOI
  82. Mosconi, 2009, Measurement of the torque on a single stretched and twisted DNA using magnetic tweezers, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 078301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.078301 · DOI
  83. Castro-Villarreal, 2019, Stochastic curvature of enclosed semiflexible polymers, Phys. Rev. E, 100, 012503, 10.1103/PhysRevE.100.012503 · DOI
  84. Kanno, 1963, A study of the nucleus and cell membranes of oocytes with an intra-cellular electrode, Exp. Cell Res., 31, 149, 10.1016/0014-4827(63)90164-2 · DOI
  85. Mazzanti, 1990, Ion channels in the nuclear envelope, Nature, 343, 764, 10.1038/343764a0 · DOI
  86. Zhou, 2009, Universal behavior of the osmotically compressed cell and its analogy to the colloidal glass transition, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106, 10632, 10.1073/pnas.0901462106 · DOI
  87. Evans, 1976, Elastic area compressibility modulus of red cell membrane, Biophys. J., 16, 585, 10.1016/S0006-3495(76)85713-X · DOI
  88. Hategan, 2003, Adhesively-tensed cell membranes: lysis kinetics and atomic force microscopy probing, Biophys. J., 85, 2746, 10.1016/S0006-3495(03)74697-9 · DOI
  89. Butler, 2009, Changing nuclear landscape and unique PML structures during early epigenetic transitions of human embryonic stem cells, J. Cell. Biochem., 107, 609, 10.1002/jcb.22183 · DOI
  90. Yan, 2007, Micromanipulation studies of chromatin fibers in Xenopus egg extracts reveal ATP-dependent chromatin assembly dynamics, Mol. Biol. Cell, 18, 464, 10.1091/mbc.e06-09-0800 · DOI
  91. Meng, 2015, Quantitative analysis of single-molecule force spectroscopy on folded chromatin fibers, Nucleic Acids Res., 43, 3578, 10.1093/nar/gkv215 · DOI
  92. Levy, 2010, Nuclear size is regulated by importin α and Ntf2 in Xenopus, Cell, 143, 288, 10.1016/j.cell.2010.09.012 · DOI
  93. Edens, 2014, cPKC regulates interphase nuclear size during Xenopus development, J. Cell Biol., 206, 473, 10.1083/jcb.201406004 · DOI
  94. Deviri, 2021, Balance of osmotic pressures determines the volume of the cell nucleus, bioRxiv
  95. Wu, 2022, The correlation between cell and nucleus size is explained by an eukaryotic cell growth model, PLoS Comput. Biol., 18, e1009400, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009400 · DOI · Paper page
  96. Alisafaei, 2019, Regulation of nuclear architecture, mechanics, and nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of epigenetic factors by cell geometric constraints, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 116, 13200, 10.1073/pnas.1902035116 · DOI
  97. Wang, 2002, Micropatterning tractional forces in living cells, Cell Motil Cytoskeleton, 52, 97, 10.1002/cm.10037 · DOI
  98. Makhija, 2016, Nuclear deformability and telomere dynamics are regulated by cell geometric constraints, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, E32, 10.1073/pnas.1513189113 · DOI
  99. Chu, 2017, On the origin of shape fluctuations of the cell nucleus, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 10338, 10.1073/pnas.1702226114 · DOI
  100. Dupont, 2011, Role of YAP/TAZ in mechanotransduction, Nature, 474, 179, 10.1038/nature10137 · DOI · Paper page
  101. Jain, 2013, Cell geometric constraints induce modular gene-expression patterns via redistribution of HDAC3 regulated by actomyosin contractility, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110, 11349, 10.1073/pnas.1300801110 · DOI
  102. Benham-Pyle, 2015, Mechanical strain induces E-cadherin–dependent Yap1 and β-catenin activation to drive cell cycle entry, Science, 348, 1024, 10.1126/science.aaa4559 · DOI
  103. Buxboim, 2017, Coordinated increase of nuclear tension and lamin-A with matrix stiffness outcompetes lamin-B receptor that favors soft tissue phenotypes, Mol. Biol. Cell, 28, 3333, 10.1091/mbc.e17-06-0393 · DOI
  104. Weidemann, 2003, Counting nucleosomes in living cells with a combination of fluorescence correlation spectroscopy and confocal imaging, J. Mol. Biol., 334, 229, 10.1016/j.jmb.2003.08.063 · DOI
  105. Raveh-Sadka, 2012, Manipulating nucleosome disfavoring sequences allows fine-tune regulation of gene expression in yeast, Nat. Genet., 44, 743, 10.1038/ng.2305 · DOI
  106. Schmidt, 1995, Cell size regulation, a mechanism that controls cellular RNA accumulation: consequences on regulation of the ubiquitous transcription factors Oct1 and NF-Y, and the liver-enriched transcription factor DBP, J. Cell Biol., 128, 467, 10.1083/jcb.128.4.467 · DOI
  107. Yen, 1979, Role of nuclear size in cell growth initiation, Science, 204, 1315, 10.1126/science.451539 · DOI
  108. Fidorra, 1981, Cellular and nuclear volume of human cells during the cell cycle, Radiat. Environ. Biophys., 19, 205, 10.1007/BF01324188 · DOI
  109. Salem, 1998, Changes in the rate of RNA synthesis during the cell cycle, Anat. Rec., 250, 6, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(199801)250:1<6::AID-AR2>3.0.CO;2-4 · DOI
  110. Mosammaparast, 2002, A role for nucleosome assembly protein 1 in the nuclear transport of histones H2A and H2B, EMBO J., 21, 6527, 10.1093/emboj/cdf647 · DOI
  111. Mosammaparast, 2002, Pathways mediating the nuclear import of histones H3 and H4 in yeast, J. Biol. Chem., 277, 862, 10.1074/jbc.M106845200 · DOI
  112. Roy, 2017, Laterally confined growth of cells induces nuclear reprogramming in the absence of exogenous biochemical factors, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 115, E4741

Metadata

Authors
Efremov, A. K., Hovan, L., & Yan, J.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Efremov, Artem K.
ORCID
Venue
Biophysical Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-11
Volume
121
Issue
21
Pages
4189-4204
ISSN
0006-3495 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.bpj.2022.09.019
PMC
PMC9675033
OpenAlex
W4296799747
Cited by
21
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Biophysical Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation Singapore
  • Ministry of Education - Singapore
  • National University of Singapore Mechanobiology Institute
  • Shenzhen Bay Laboratory
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nuclear Structure and Function
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
Keywords
nuclear size, nucleosome stability, chromatin structure, endoplasmic reticulum membrane, osmotic pressure, piezoelectric properties, polymer field theory, nuclear organization
MeSH terms
Cell Nucleus, Chromatin, DNA, Nucleosomes, Cell Nucleus Size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nucleus size and its effect on nucleosome stability in living cells. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.bpj.2022.09.019
The paper
Efremov, A. K., Hovan, L., & Yan, J. (2022). Nucleus size and its effect on nucleosome stability in living cells. Biophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2022.09.019