Cited by 1,338Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsChromatin Remodeling and CancerChromosomal and Genetic Variations

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 37 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Multiscale 3D Genome Rewiring during Mouse Neural Development

Open access

Abstract

Chromosome conformation capture technologies have revealed important insights into genome folding. Yet, how spatial genome architecture is related to gene expression and cell fate remains unclear. We comprehensively mapped 3D chromatin organization during mouse neural differentiation in vitro and in vivo, generating the highest-resolution Hi-C maps available to date. We found that transcription is correlated with chromatin insulation and long-range interactions, but dCas9-mediated activation is insufficient for creating TAD boundaries de novo. Additionally, we discovered long-range contacts between gene bodies of exon-rich, active genes in all cell types. During neural differentiation, contacts between active TADs become less pronounced while inactive TADs interact more strongly. An extensive Polycomb network in stem cells is disrupted, while dynamic interactions between neural transcription factors appear in vivo. Finally, cell type-specific enhancer-promoter contacts are established concomitant to gene expression. This work shows that multiple factors influence the dynamics of chromatin interactions in development.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Ultra-deep in situ Hi-C across mouse ES cells, neural progenitors, and cortical neurons in vitro and in vivo reveals multiscale 3D genome rewiring during neural differentiation. The study links transcription, CTCF, Polycomb, neural transcription factors, and enhancer-promoter contacts to dynamic chromatin architecture, while showing that transcription alone is not sufficient to create TAD boundaries de novo.

Key findings

  • Differentiation involves global compartment reorganization: interactions between active A-type domains decrease, while contacts within inactive B-type domains become stronger; compartment borders decrease with differentiation.
  • TADs decrease in number and increase in size; CTCF-less boundaries increase. Developmentally regulated boundaries include 259 ES-specific and 54 neural-specific boundaries. CRISPR-dCas9 activation at Zfp608 and Sox4 caused >10- to 20-fold gene activation but no significant insulation or contact-map change, indicating transcription is correlated with but not sufficient for de novo TAD boundary formation.
  • CTCF-mediated loops between convergent CTCF sites increase during differentiation despite decreased CTCF binding; ES-specific CTCF contacts and insulation are lost in NPCs, validated by 3D DNA FISH at the Zfp42 locus.
  • Active promoters show CTCF-independent insulation and interact with other active promoters across TAD boundaries; gene bodies of exon-rich, highly expressed genes form long-range contacts in cis and trans, correlating with exon number/splicing. Polycomb-mediated contacts are disrupted during differentiation and correlate with Ring1B rather than H3K27me3. In vivo, neural TFs Pax6, NeuroD2, and Tbr1 organize cell-type-specific contacts, and enhancer-promoter contacts are mostly cell-type specific and generally established concomitantly with gene expression.

Methods

  • In situ Hi-C was performed on FACS-purified G0/G1 mouse ES cells, NPCs, and CNs from an in vitro differentiation system, plus NPCs and CNs purified from E14.5 mouse neocortex in vivo. The study reports >40 billion paired-end reads and >17 billion uniquely mapped contacts, with >11 billion uniquely aligned contacts in vitro and ~3 billion per in vivo cell type; maximum resolution reached 750 bp.
  • Complementary assays included RNA-seq, ChIP-seq for chromatin marks and factors such as CTCF and Ring1B, 3D DNA FISH, and CRISPR-dCas9-mediated gene activation.
  • Hi-C analysis used fragment-end resolution, expected models generated with the Shaman R package, insulation scores, eigenvector-based A/B compartment assignment, aggregate Hi-C maps, and contact enrichment quantification.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the in vitro system recapitulates some but not all aspects of cortical development, such as neuronal migration and morphogen signaling; it also notes that whether the observed gene-body contacts are directly linked to co-transcriptional splicing remains to be seen, and whether TF contacts represent true homotypic interactions is unresolved.
  • The paper states that clear violations of a simple enhancer-promoter looping model exist, as some enhancer-promoter loops are pre-established.
  • Evident from the text: Hi-C is population-averaged and cannot resolve single-cell or allele-specific heterogeneity; FISH validates only selected loci; dCas9 activation was tested at two loci; and in vitro versus in vivo differences may limit generalization.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.043

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 37 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 53
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
65 of 65
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Our understanding of the interaction dynamics at the smallest scales during developmental processes is currently limited.

    “However, our understanding of the interaction dynamics at the smallest scales during developmental processes is currently limited.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The relation between loop extrusion models and transcription remains unclear.

    “However, the relation between such models and transcription remains unclear.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The mechanisms contributing to developmentally regulated TAD borders remain poorly understood.

    “yet the mechanisms contributing to developmentally regulated borders remain poorly understood.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The majority of strong Polycomb-bound regions are on gene promoters.

    “As the majority of strong Polycomb-bound regions are on gene promoters, we examined whether their interaction might depend on paused Pol II that is located at bivalent gene promoters (Min et al., 2011).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Enhancer-promoter contacts have been difficult to observe in Hi-C, and their strength relative to surrounding regions is unclear.

    “Enhancer-promoter (E-P) contacts have been difficult to observe in Hi-C, and it is unclear how strong they are compared to the surrounding regions.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The in vitro differentiation system recapitulates some aspects of cortical development but not others such as neuronal migration and morphogen signaling.

    “Furthermore, although the in vitro system we employed recapitulates some aspects of cortical development, other features, such as neuronal migration and morphogen signaling, are not.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The vast majority of ultra-close cis Hi-C contacts (separated by less than 1 kb) originate from non-digested DNA.

    “Contacts separated by less than 1kb were not considered for subsequent analysis, as the vast majority of this ultra-close cis contacts originate from non-digested DNA.”
7 of 7

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Guide RNA is labeled for a different gene than the reported activation target

    Minor

    The experiment is described as activating Zfp608 and Sox4, but the methods label one of the guide RNAs "Zfp604." As written, the stated guide target does not match the gene used for the reported Zfp608 activation result.

  • Deposited-data table labels the CN RNA sample as NPC

    Minor

    The table lists both complementary sorted populations as ncx_NPC, whereas the paper identifies Hes5-GFP−/Dcx-mRFP+ cells as ncx CN.

  • In vivo sorting methods list the NPC population twice

    Minor

    The figure identifies GFP+/RFP− cells as NPCs and GFP−/RFP+ cells as CNs. The isolation methods instead list GFP+/RFP− and RFP−/GFP+-the same population in reversed notation-rather than the CN population.

  • Cacna2d1 contact distance exceeds the stated map region

    Minor

    The text places the interacting Ring1B site approximately 500 kb downstream of the Cacna2d1 promoter, but the Figure S6J caption says its map shows an approximately 150-kb region around that promoter containing the interaction. A 150-kb region cannot contain both sites as described.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 53 references

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,338

Metadata

Authors
Bonev, B., Mendelson Cohen, N., Szabo, Q., Fritsch, L., Papadopoulos, G. L., Lubling, Y., Xu, X., Lv, X., Hugnot, J.-P., Tanay, A., & Cavalli, G.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
  • BGI Group (China) (CN)
  • Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
  • Bonev, Boyan
  • Cavalli, Giacomo
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
171
Issue
3
Pages
557-572.e24
ISSN
0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2765567136
Cited by
1,338
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 110 · 2025: 129 · 2024: 143 · 2023: 139 · 2022: 166 · 2021: 181 · 2020: 190 · 2019: 170 · 2018: 100 · 2017: 6
FWCI
52.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Research Council (232947)
  • Israeli Science Foundation
  • CNRS
  • FP7 European Network of Excellence EpiGeneSys (676556)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-15-CE12-006-01)
  • Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (144186)
  • INSERM and ITMO Cancer (PLBIO16-22)
  • Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-12-01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
Keywords
3D genome organization, chromatin conformation, neuronal differentiation, topologically associating domains, long-range chromatin interactions, chromatin insulation, enhancer-promoter interactions
MeSH terms
CCCTC-Binding Factor, Animals, Chromatin, Enhancer Elements, Genetic, Exons, Promoter Regions, Genetic, Repressor Proteins, Transcription Factors, Gene Expression, Genome, Mice, Gene Regulatory Networks, Embryonic Stem Cells, Neurogenesis

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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