PreprintCited by 90Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsChromatin Remodeling and CancerGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Joint annotation of chromatin state and chromatin conformation reveals relationships among domain types and identifies domains of cell-type-specific expression

Open access
Libbrecht, Maxwell W., Ay, Ferhat, Hoffman, Michael M., Gilbert, David M., Bilmes, Jeffrey A., Noble, William Stafford·2015·Genome Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The genomic neighborhood of a gene influences its activity, a behavior that is attributable in part to domain-scale regulation. Previous genomic studies have identified many types of regulatory domains. However, due to the difficulty of integrating genomics data sets, the relationships among these domain types are poorly understood. Semi-automated genome annotation (SAGA) algorithms facilitate human interpretation of heterogeneous collections of genomics data by simultaneously partitioning the human genome and assigning labels to the resulting genomic segments. However, existing SAGA methods cannot integrate inherently pairwise chromatin conformation data. We developed a new computational method, called graph-based regularization (GBR), for expressing a pairwise prior that encourages certain pairs of genomic loci to receive the same label in a genome annotation. We used GBR to exploit chromatin conformation information during genome annotation by encouraging positions that are close in 3D to occupy the same type of domain. Using this approach, we produced a model of chromatin domains in eight human cell types, thereby revealing the relationships among known domain types. Through this model, we identified clusters of tightly regulated genes expressed in only a small number of cell types, which we term “specific expression domains.” We found that domain boundaries marked by promoters and CTCF motifs are consistent between cell types even when domain activity changes. Finally, we showed that GBR can be used to transfer information from well-studied cell types to less well-characterized cell types during genome annotation, making it possible to produce high-quality annotations of the hundreds of cell types with limited available data.

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 · 10.1101/gr.184341.114

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Five distinct groups of TADs were identified by k-means clustering of chromatin state coverage: heterochromatin (61), low/quiescent (705), repressed (481), low-active (764) and active (365) domains.

    “The obtained matrix was grouped using the k-means clustering approach and five distinct groups of TADs were identified similar to a previous classification of chromatin domains17,19,33. These groups comprised heterochromatin (61), low/quiescent (705), repressed (481), low-active (764) and active (365) domains (Fig. 4a, Supplementary Table 4).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Libbrecht, M. W., Ay, F., Hoffman, M. M., Gilbert, D. M., Bilmes, J. A., & Noble, W. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Florida State University (US)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2015-02-12
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
544-557
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2146339031
Cited by
84
References
67
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
NIH (U41HG007000, R01ES024917)
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 › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
chromatin domains, chromatin conformation, 3D genome organization, graph regularization, cell type-specific gene expression, domain boundaries, promoter, regulatory domain
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Chromatin, HeLa Cells, Humans, Molecular Conformation, Promoter Regions, Genetic, Genome, Human, Computational Biology, Amino Acid Motifs, Chromosome Structures, Genomics, Cell Line, Tumor, Hep G2 Cells, Molecular Sequence Annotation, Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells

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