Single-nucleus Hi-C reveals unique chromatin reorganization at oocyte-to-zygote transition

  • Nature volume 544, pages 110114 (06 April 2017)
  • doi:10.1038/nature21711
  • Download Citation


Chromatin is reprogrammed after fertilization to produce a totipotent zygote with the potential to generate a new organism1. The maternal genome inherited from the oocyte and the paternal genome provided by sperm coexist as separate haploid nuclei in the zygote. How these two epigenetically distinct genomes are spatially organized is poorly understood. Existing chromosome conformation capture-based methods2,3,4,5 are not applicable to oocytes and zygotes owing to a paucity of material. To study three-dimensional chromatin organization in rare cell types, we developed a single-nucleus Hi-C (high-resolution chromosome conformation capture) protocol that provides greater than tenfold more contacts per cell than the previous method2. Here we show that chromatin architecture is uniquely reorganized during the oocyte-to-zygote transition in mice and is distinct in paternal and maternal nuclei within single-cell zygotes. Features of genomic organization including compartments, topologically associating domains (TADs) and loops are present in individual oocytes when averaged over the genome, but the presence of each feature at a locus varies between cells. At the sub-megabase level, we observed stochastic clusters of contacts that can occur across TAD boundaries but average into TADs. Notably, we found that TADs and loops, but not compartments, are present in zygotic maternal chromatin, suggesting that these are generated by different mechanisms. Our results demonstrate that the global chromatin organization of zygote nuclei is fundamentally different from that of other interphase cells. An understanding of this zygotic chromatin ‘ground state’ could potentially provide insights into reprogramming cells to a state of totipotency.

  • Subscribe to Nature for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


Primary accessions

Gene Expression Omnibus


  1. 1.

    & Reprogramming the genome to totipotency in mouse embryos. Trends Cell Biol. 25, 82–91 (2015)

  2. 2.

    et al. Single-cell Hi-C reveals cell-to-cell variability in chromosome structure. Nature 502, 59–64 (2013)

  3. 3.

    et al. Fine-scale chromatin interaction maps reveal the cis-regulatory landscape of human lincRNA genes. Nat. Methods 12, 71–78 (2015)

  4. 4.

    et al. Mapping nucleosome resolution chromosome folding in yeast by micro-C. Cell 162, 108–119 (2015)

  5. 5.

    et al. C-ing the genome: a compendium of chromosome conformation capture methods to study higher-order chromatin organization. J. Cell. Physiol. 231, 31–35 (2016)

  6. 6.

    et al. Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science 326, 289–293 (2009)

  7. 7.

    , , & Global identification of yeast chromosome interactions using Genome conformation capture. Fungal Genet. Biol. 46, 879–886 (2009)

  8. 8.

    et al. A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell 159, 1665–1680 (2014)

  9. 9.

    et al. Cell cycle dynamics of chromosomal organisation at single-cell resolution. Preprint at bioRxiv (2016)

  10. 10.

    et al. Massively multiplex single-cell Hi-C. Nat. Methods 14, 263–266 (2017)

  11. 11.

    et al. Organization of the mitotic chromosome. Science 342, 948–953 (2013)

  12. 12.

    et al. Cohesin-dependent globules and heterochromatin shape 3D genome architecture in S. pombe. Nature 516, 432–435 (2014)

  13. 13.

    , , & Physical tethering and volume exclusion determine higher-order genome organization in budding yeast. Genome Res. 22, 1295–1305 (2012)

  14. 14.

    , , & From a melt of rings to chromosome territories: the role of topological constraints in genome folding. Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 022601 (2014)

  15. 15.

    et al. Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions. Nature 485, 376–380 (2012)

  16. 16.

    et al. Spatial partitioning of the regulatory landscape of the X-inactivation centre. Nature 485, 381–385 (2012)

  17. 17.

    et al. Insulator dysfunction and oncogene activation in IDH mutant gliomas. Nature 529, 110–114 (2016)

  18. 18.

    et al. Formation of new chromatin domains determines pathogenicity of genomic duplications. Nature 538, 265–269 (2016)

  19. 19.

    et al. Disruptions of topological chromatin domains cause pathogenic rewiring of gene-enhancer interactions. Cell 161, 1012–1025 (2015)

  20. 20.

    et al. Condensin-driven remodelling of X chromosome topology during dosage compensation. Nature 523, 240–244 (2015)

  21. 21.

    . et al. Chromatin extrusion explains key features of loop and domain formation in wild-type and engineered genomes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E6456–E6465 (2015)

  22. 22.

    et al. Formation of chromosomal domains by loop extrusion. Cell Reports 15, 2038–2049 (2016)

  23. 23.

    et al. Chromatin configuration and transcriptional control in human and mouse oocytes. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 64, 458–470 (2003)

  24. 24.

    et al. Differential transcriptional activity associated with chromatin configuration in fully grown mouse germinal vesicle oocytes. Biol. Reprod. 60, 580–587 (1999)

  25. 25.

    et al. Comparison of the three-dimensional organization of sperm and fibroblast genomes using the Hi-C approach. Genome Biol. 16, 77 (2015)

  26. 26.

    & DNA packaging and organization in mammalian spermatozoa: comparison with somatic cells. Biol. Reprod. 44, 569–574 (1991)

  27. 27.

    et al. Two independent modes of chromosome organization are revealed by cohesin removal. Preprint at bioRxiv (2016)

  28. 28.

    , , & Differential H4 acetylation of paternal and maternal chromatin precedes DNA replication and differential transcriptional activity in pronuclei of 1-cell mouse embryos. Development 124, 4615–4625 (1997)

  29. 29.

    et al. Rec8-containing cohesin maintains bivalents without turnover during the growing phase of mouse oocytes. Genes Dev. 24, 2505–2516 (2010)

  30. 30.

    , , & Whole-genome haplotype reconstruction using proximity-ligation and shotgun sequencing. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1111–1118 (2013)

  31. 31.

    et al. Chromatin architecture reorganization during stem cell differentiation. Nature 518, 331–336 (2015)

  32. 32.

    . et al. Cohesin and CTCF differentially affect chromatin architecture and gene expression in human cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 996–1001 (2014)

  33. 33.

    et al. A high-resolution map of the three-dimensional chromatin interactome in human cells. Nature 503, 290–294 (2013)

  34. 34.

    et al. The properties of genome conformation and spatial gene interaction and regulation networks of normal and malignant human cell types. PLoS One 8, e58793 (2013)

  35. 35.

    et al. Cohesin-mediated interactions organize chromosomal domain architecture. EMBO J. 32, 3119–3129 (2013)

  36. 36.

    et al. Spatial organization of the mouse genome and its role in recurrent chromosomal translocations. Cell 148, 908–921 (2012)

  37. 37.

    et al. Correlated alterations in genome organization, histone methylation, and DNA-lamin A/C interactions in Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome. Genome Res. 23, 260–269 (2013)

  38. 38.

    et al. Global changes in the nuclear positioning of genes and intra- and interdomain genomic interactions that orchestrate B cell fate. Nat. Immunol. 13, 1196–1204 (2012)

  39. 39.

    , , , & Solid-phase chromosome conformation capture for structural characterization of genome architectures. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 90–98 (2011)

  40. 40.

    et al. Global reorganization of the nuclear landscape in senescent cells. Cell Reports 10, 471–483 (2015)

Download references


We thank C. Theußl for help with pronuclear extraction procedure, S. Ladstätter for assistance in scoring oocyte stages and K. Klien for experimental support and mouse colony management. We are grateful to I. Adams, S. Boyle, I. Vassias-Jossic, G. Almouzni and W. Bickmore for advice and help with FISH experiments. Illumina sequencing was performed at the VBCF NGS Unit (http://www.vbcf.ac.at) except Hi-C libraries from MEL cells, which were sequenced in the Laboratory of Evolutionary Genomics of the Faculty of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics, Moscow State University, by M. Logacheva. K562 cells were a gift from Alexander Stark laboratory. We thank the staff of the Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine imaging facility and Vienna Biocenter BioOptics facility for assistance with imaging and analysis. We thank all members of the K.T.-K. laboratory for discussions, Life Science Editors for editorial assistance and R. Illingworth for critically reading the manuscript. J.G. is an associated student of the DK Chromosome Dynamics supported by the grant W1238-B20 from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF). H.B.B. was partly supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, PGS-D. This work was funded by the Austrian Academy of Sciences and by the European Research Council (ERC-StG-336460 ChromHeritance) to K.T.-K. as well as by a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (14-24-00022) to S.V.U. and S.V.R. The work in the Mirny laboratory is supported by R01 GM114190, U54 DK107980 from the National Institute of Health, and 1504942 from the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Author notes

    • Ilya M. Flyamer

    Present address: MRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, UK.

    • Leonid A. Mirny
    •  & Kikuë Tachibana-Konwalski

    These authors jointly supervised this work.

    • Ilya M. Flyamer
    • , Johanna Gassler
    •  & Maxim Imakaev

    These authors contributed equally to this work.


  1. IMBA - Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna Biocenter (VBC), Dr Bohr-Gasse 3, 1030 Vienna, Austria

    • Ilya M. Flyamer
    • , Johanna Gassler
    •  & Kikuë Tachibana-Konwalski
  2. Institute of Gene Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 119334, Russia

    • Ilya M. Flyamer
    • , Sergey V. Ulianov
    •  & Sergey V. Razin
  3. Faculty of Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119234, Russia

    • Ilya M. Flyamer
    • , Sergey V. Ulianov
    •  & Sergey V. Razin
  4. Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

    • Maxim Imakaev
    •  & Leonid A. Mirny
  5. Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

    • Maxim Imakaev
    •  & Leonid A. Mirny
  6. Harvard Program in Biophysics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA

    • Hugo B. Brandão
    •  & Leonid A. Mirny
  7. Computational and Systems Biology Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 USA

    • Nezar Abdennur


  1. Search for Ilya M. Flyamer in:

  2. Search for Johanna Gassler in:

  3. Search for Maxim Imakaev in:

  4. Search for Hugo B. Brandão in:

  5. Search for Sergey V. Ulianov in:

  6. Search for Nezar Abdennur in:

  7. Search for Sergey V. Razin in:

  8. Search for Leonid A. Mirny in:

  9. Search for Kikuë Tachibana-Konwalski in:


I.M.F., J.G. and M.I. contributed equally and are listed alphabetically. K.T.-K. conceived the project. I.M.F., M.I., S.V.U. and K.T.-K. conceived the method. I.M.F. developed the method. I.M.F. and J.G., supervised by K.T.-K., performed snHi-C on oocytes and zygotes. S.V.U. supervised by S.V.R. and K.T.-K. performed scHi-C on K562 cells. I.M.F. supervised by S.V.R. performed in situ Hi-C on MEL cells. I.M.F. supervised by K.T-K performed 3D FISH on ES cells. J.G. supervised by K.T-K performed 3D FISH on zygotes. N.A. developed and maintains the library ‘lavaburst’ for TAD calling. M.I. and H.B.B. supervised by L.A.M. developed and performed snHi-C data analysis. H.B.B. led FISH data analysis and performed contact cluster analysis. M.I. performed simulations, processed the data, and performed genome-wide averaging analyses. M.I., H.B.B., I.M.F. and J.G. prepared the figures. M.I., I.M.F., J.G., H.B.B., L.A.M. and K.T.-K. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Leonid A. Mirny or Kikuë Tachibana-Konwalski.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary References and Supplementary Table 1.


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.