Cited by 169Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsChromosomal and Genetic VariationsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities

Comparison of Hi-C results using in-solution versus in-nucleus ligation

Open access
Nagano, Takashi, Várnai, Csilla, Schoenfelder, Stefan, Javierre, Biola-Maria, Wingett, Steven W., Fraser, Peter·2015·Genome Biology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chromosome conformation capture and various derivative methods such as 4C, 5C and Hi-C have emerged as standard tools to analyze the three-dimensional organization of the genome in the nucleus. These methods employ ligation of diluted cross-linked chromatin complexes, intended to favor proximity-dependent, intra-complex ligation. During development of single-cell Hi-C, we devised an alternative Hi-C protocol with ligation in preserved nuclei rather than in solution. Here we directly compare Hi-C methods employing in-nucleus ligation with the standard in-solution ligation. RESULTS: We show in-nucleus ligation results in consistently lower levels of inter-chromosomal contacts. Through chromatin mixing experiments we show that a significantly large fraction of inter-chromosomal contacts are the result of spurious ligation events formed during in-solution ligation. In-nucleus ligation significantly reduces this source of experimental noise, and results in improved reproducibility between replicates. We also find that in-nucleus ligation eliminates restriction fragment length bias found with in-solution ligation. These improvements result in greater reproducibility of long-range intra-chromosomal and inter-chromosomal contacts, as well as enhanced detection of structural features such as topologically associated domain boundaries. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in-nucleus ligation captures chromatin interactions more consistently over a wider range of distances, and significantly reduces both experimental noise and bias. In-nucleus ligation creates higher quality Hi-C libraries while simplifying the experimental procedure. We suggest that the entire range of 3C applications are likely to show similar benefits from in-nucleus ligation.

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 · 10.1186/s13059-015-0753-7

Cites

26 of 26 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [29]Datasets deposited at Gene Expression Omnibus, GSE70181. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?token=wtmfywywjrshbip&acc=GSE70181.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nagano, T., Várnai, C., Schoenfelder, S., Javierre, B.-M., Wingett, S. W., & Fraser, P.
Affiliations
Babraham Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Nagano, Takashi
  • Fraser, Peter
Venue
Genome Biology
Published
2015-08-26
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
175-175
ISSN
  • 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-760X
OpenAlex
W2116261028
Cited by
166
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • European Research Council (111608)
  • BBSRC (BBS/E/B/000C0405)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Keywords
Hi-C, chromosome conformation capture, 3D genome organization, topologically associating domains, single-cell Hi-C
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Nucleus, Cells, Cultured, Chromatin, Humans, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Genomics, Mice

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