Review Article | Published:

EPIGENETICS

Chromatin accessibility and the regulatory epigenome

Abstract

Physical access to DNA is a highly dynamic property of chromatin that plays an essential role in establishing and maintaining cellular identity. The organization of accessible chromatin across the genome reflects a network of permissible physical interactions through which enhancers, promoters, insulators and chromatin-binding factors cooperatively regulate gene expression. This landscape of accessibility changes dynamically in response to both external stimuli and developmental cues, and emerging evidence suggests that homeostatic maintenance of accessibility is itself dynamically regulated through a competitive interplay between chromatin-binding factors and nucleosomes. In this Review, we examine how the accessible genome is measured and explore the role of transcription factors in initiating accessibility remodelling; our goal is to illustrate how chromatin accessibility defines regulatory elements within the genome and how these epigenetic features are dynamically established to control gene expression.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

10X Genomics single-cell ATAC-seq: https://www.10xgenomics.com/solutions/single-cell-atac/

Bio-Rad Laboratories single-cell ATAC-seq: http://www.bio-rad.com/scATAC-Seq

References

  1. 1.

    Kossel, A. Ueber einen peptoartigen bestandheil des zellkerns [German]. Z. Physiol. Chem. 5, 511–515 (1884).

  2. 2.

    Kossel, A. 1910 Nobel lecture: the chemical composition of the cell nucleus. NobelPrize https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1910/kossel/lecture (2018).

  3. 3.

    Kornberg, R. D. & Thomas, J. O. Chromatin structure; oligomers of the histones. Science 184, 865–868 (1974).

  4. 4.

    Kaplan, N. et al. The DNA-encoded nucleosome organization of a eukaryotic genome. Nature 458, 362–366 (2009).

  5. 5.

    Lorch, Y., LaPointe, J. W. & Kornberg, R. D. Nucleosomes inhibit the initiation of transcription but allow chain elongation with the displacement of histones. Cell 49, 203–210 (1987).

  6. 6.

    Luger, K., Mäder, A. W., Richmond, R. K., Sargent, D. F. & Richmond, T. J. Crystal structure of the nucleosome core particle at 2.8 Å resolution. Nature 389, 251–260 (1997).

  7. 7.

    Olins, A. L. & Olins, D. E. Spheroid chromatin units (v bodies). Science 183, 330–332 (1974).

  8. 8.

    Woodcock, C. L., Safer, J. P. & Stanchfield, J. E. Structural repeating units in chromatin. I. Evidence for their general occurrence. Exp. Cell Res. 97, 101–110 (1976).

  9. 9.

    Olins, D. E. & Olins, A. L. Chromatin history: our view from the bridge. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 4, 809–814 (2003).

  10. 10.

    Allis, C. D. & Jenuwein, T. The molecular hallmarks of epigenetic control. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 487–500 (2016).

  11. 11.

    Dann, G. P. et al. ISWI chromatin remodellers sense nucleosome modifications to determine substrate preference. Nature 548, 607–611 (2017).

  12. 12.

    Lee, C.-K., Shibata, Y., Rao, B., Strahl, B. D. & Lieb, J. D. Evidence for nucleosome depletion at active regulatory regions genome-wide. Nat. Genet. 36, 900–905 (2004).

  13. 13.

    Thurman, R. E. et al. The accessible chromatin landscape of the human genome. Nature 489, 75–82 (2012). This study maps DNase hypersensitivity across 125 human cell lines, demonstrates a strong correlation between distal regulatory elements and promoters and establishes chromatin accessibility as a reliable proxy for cumulative TF binding.

  14. 14.

    McBryant, S. J., Adams, V. H. & Hansen, J. C. Chromatin architectural proteins. Chromosome Res. 14, 39–51 (2006).

  15. 15.

    Bednar, J. et al. Nucleosomes, linker DNA, and linker histone form a unique structural motif that directs the higher-order folding and compaction of chromatin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 14173–14178 (1998).

  16. 16.

    Fyodorov, D. V., Zhou, B.-R., Skoultchi, A. I. & Bai, Y. Emerging roles of linker histones in regulating chromatin structure and function. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 19, 192–206 (2018).

  17. 17.

    Nalabothula, N. et al. The chromatin architectural proteins HMGD1 and H1 bind reciprocally and have opposite effects on chromatin structure and gene regulation. BMC Genomics 15, 92 (2014).

  18. 18.

    Kim, J.-M. et al. Linker histone H1.2 establishes chromatin compaction and gene silencing through recognition of H3K27me3. Sci. Rep. 5, 16714 (2015).

  19. 19.

    Routh, A., Sandin, S. & Rhodes, D. Nucleosome repeat length and linker histone stoichiometry determine chromatin fiber structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 8872–8877 (2008).

  20. 20.

    Izzo, A. et al. Dynamic changes in H1 subtype composition during epigenetic reprogramming. J. Cell Biol. 216, 3017–3028 (2017).

  21. 21.

    Izzo, A. & Schneider, R. H1 gets the genome in shape. Genome Biol. 17, 8 (2016).

  22. 22.

    Poirier, M. G., Bussiek, M., Langowski, J. & Widom, J. Spontaneous access to DNA target sites in folded chromatin fibers. J. Mol. Biol. 379, 772–786 (2008).

  23. 23.

    Krebs, A. R. et al. Genome-wide single-molecule footprinting reveals high RNA polymerase II turnover at paused promoters. Mol. Cell 67, 411–422 (2017). This study develops a high-coverage, single-molecule protection assay to show that RNA polymerase II binding is highly dynamic at many gene promoters.

  24. 24.

    Felsenfeld, G., Boyes, J., Chung, J., Clark, D. & Studitsky, V. Chromatin structure and gene expression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 9384–9388 (1996).

  25. 25.

    John, S. et al. Chromatin accessibility pre-determines glucocorticoid receptor binding patterns. Nat. Genet. 43, 264–268 (2011). This is the first paper to establish that the glucocorticoid receptor almost exclusively binds to open chromatin.

  26. 26.

    Di Stefano, B. et al. C/EBPα creates elite cells for iPSC reprogramming by upregulating Klf4 and increasing the levels of Lsd1 and Brd4. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 371–381 (2016). This work shows that the initial epigenetic state of a cell — including chromatin accessibility — determines its reprogramming potential.

  27. 27.

    Barozzi, I. et al. Coregulation of transcription factor binding and nucleosome occupancy through DNA features of mammalian enhancers. Mol. Cell 54, 844–857 (2014). This paper shows that nucleosome occupancy regulates pioneer factor (PU.1) binding in vivo.

  28. 28.

    Grøntved, L. et al. C/EBP maintains chromatin accessibility in liver and facilitates glucocorticoid receptor recruitment to steroid response elements. EMBO J. 32, 1568–1583 (2013).

  29. 29.

    Buenrostro, J. D., Giresi, P. G., Zaba, L. C., Chang, H. Y. & Greenleaf, W. J. Transposition of native chromatin for fast and sensitive epigenomic profiling of open chromatin, DNA-binding proteins and nucleosome position. Nat. Methods 10, 1213–1218 (2013).

  30. 30.

    Corces, M. R. et al. Lineage-specific and single-cell chromatin accessibility charts human hematopoiesis and leukemia evolution. Nat. Genet. 48, 1193–1203 (2016).

  31. 31.

    Buenrostro, J. D. et al. Single-cell chromatin accessibility reveals principles of regulatory variation. Nature 523, 486–490 (2015).

  32. 32.

    Cusanovich, D. A. et al. Multiplex single cell profiling of chromatin accessibility by combinatorial cellular indexing. Science 348, 910–914 (2015). References 31 and 32 are the first reports of single-cell chromatin accessibility.

  33. 33.

    Corces, M. R. et al. An improved ATAC-seq protocol reduces background and enables interrogation of frozen tissues. Nat. Methods 14, 959–962 (2017).

  34. 34.

    Pott, S. Simultaneous measurement of chromatin accessibility, DNA methylation, and nucleosome phasing in single cells. eLife 6, e23203 (2017).

  35. 35.

    Jin, W. et al. Genome-wide detection of DNase I hypersensitive sites in single cells and FFPE tissue samples. Nature 528, 142–146 (2015).

  36. 36.

    Hewish, D. R. & Burgoyne, L. A. Chromatin sub-structure. The digestion of chromatin DNA at regularly spaced sites by a nuclear deoxyribonuclease. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 52, 504–510 (1973).

  37. 37.

    Wu, C., Bingham, P. M., Livak, K. J., Holmgren, R. & Elgin, S. C. The chromatin structure of specific genes: I. Evidence for higher order domains of defined DNA sequence. Cell 16, 797–806 (1979).

  38. 38.

    Kornberg, R. D. Chromatin structure: a repeating unit of histones and DNA. Science 184, 868–871 (1974).

  39. 39.

    Wu, C., Wong, Y. C. & Elgin, S. C. The chromatin structure of specific genes: II. Disruption of chromatin structure during gene activity. Cell 16, 807–814 (1979).

  40. 40.

    Saiki, R. K. et al. Enzymatic amplification of beta-globin genomic sequences and restriction site analysis for diagnosis of sickle cell anemia. Science 230, 1350–1354 (1985).

  41. 41.

    Mueller, P. R. & Wold, B. In vivo footprinting of a muscle specific enhancer by ligation mediated PCR. Science 246, 780–786 (1989).

  42. 42.

    Rao, S., Procko, E. & Shannon, M. F. Chromatin remodeling, measured by a novel real-time polymerase chain reaction assay, across the proximal promoter region of the IL-2 gene. J. Immunol. 167, 4494–4503 (2001).

  43. 43.

    Crawford, G. E. et al. DNase-chip: a high-resolution method to identify DNase I hypersensitive sites using tiled microarrays. Nat. Methods 3, 503–509 (2006).

  44. 44.

    Sabo, P. J. et al. Genome-scale mapping of DNase I sensitivity in vivo using tiling DNA microarrays. Nat. Methods 3, 511–518 (2006). References 43 and 44 provide the first genome-wide measurements of DNase hypersensitivity.

  45. 45.

    Boyle, A. P. et al. High-resolution mapping and characterization of open chromatin across the genome. Cell 132, 311–322 (2008). As the first genome-wide sequencing measurement of DNase hypersensitivity (DNase-seq), this paper establishes widespread distal regulatory accessibility at gene enhancers and periodic accessibility along nucleosomal DNA.

  46. 46.

    Hesselberth, J. R. et al. Global mapping of protein-DNA interactions in vivo by digital genomic footprinting. Nat. Methods 6, 283–289 (2009).

  47. 47.

    John, S. et al. Interaction of the glucocorticoid receptor with the chromatin landscape. Mol. Cell 29, 611–624 (2008).

  48. 48.

    Baek, S., Goldstein, I. & Hager, G. L. Bivariate genomic footprinting detects changes in transcription factor activity. Cell Rep. 19, 1710–1722 (2017).

  49. 49.

    Schwessinger, R. et al. Sasquatch: predicting the impact of regulatory SNPs on transcription factor binding from cell- and tissue-specific DNase footprints. Genome Res. 27, 1730–1742 (2017).

  50. 50.

    Sos, B. C. et al. Characterization of chromatin accessibility with a transposome hypersensitive sites sequencing (THS-seq) assay. Genome Biol. 17, 20 (2016).

  51. 51.

    He, H. H. et al. Refined DNase-seq protocol and data analysis reveals intrinsic bias in transcription factor footprint identification. Nat. Methods 11, 73–78 (2014).

  52. 52.

    Schep, A. N. et al. Structured nucleosome fingerprints enable high-resolution mapping of chromatin architecture within regulatory regions. Genome Res. 25, 1757–1770 (2015).

  53. 53.

    Meyer, C. A. & Liu, X. S. Identifying and mitigating bias in next-generation sequencing methods for chromatin biology. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15, 709–721 (2014).

  54. 54.

    Buenrostro, J. D., Wu, B., Chang, H. Y. & Greenleaf, W. J. ATAC-seq: a method for assaying chromatin accessibility genome-wide. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. 109, 21.29.1–21.29.9 (2015).

  55. 55.

    Mieczkowski, J. et al. MNase titration reveals differences between nucleosome occupancy and chromatin accessibility. Nat. Commun. 7, 11485 (2016).

  56. 56.

    Mueller, B. et al. Widespread changes in nucleosome accessibility without changes in nucleosome occupancy during a rapid transcriptional induction. Genes Dev. 31, 451–462 (2017).

  57. 57.

    Allan, J., Fraser, R. M., Owen-Hughes, T. & Keszenman-Pereyra, D. Micrococcal nuclease does not substantially bias nucleosome mapping. J. Mol. Biol. 417, 152–164 (2012).

  58. 58.

    Lorzadeh, A. et al. Nucleosome density ChIP-seq identifies distinct chromatin modification signatures associated with MNase accessibility. Cell Rep. 17, 2112–2124 (2016).

  59. 59.

    Chung, H.-R. et al. The effect of micrococcal nuclease digestion on nucleosome positioning data. PLOS ONE 5, e15754 (2010).

  60. 60.

    Teif, V. B. et al. Nucleosome repositioning links DNA (de)methylation and differential CTCF binding during stem cell development. Genome Res. 24, 1285–1295 (2014).

  61. 61.

    Kelly, T. K. et al. Genome-wide mapping of nucleosome positioning and DNA methylation within individual DNA molecules. Genome Res. 22, 2497–2506 (2012).

  62. 62.

    Cusanovich, D. A. et al. The cis-regulatory dynamics of embryonic development at single-cell resolution. Nature 555, 538–542 (2018).

  63. 63.

    Cusanovich, D. A. et al. A single-cell atlas of in vivo mammalian chromatin accessibility. Cell 174, 1309–1324 (2018). Together, references 62 and 63 map the epigenetics of organismal development using an ultrahigh-throughput single-cell ATAC-seq assay.

  64. 64.

    Preissl, S. et al. Single-nucleus analysis of accessible chromatin in developing mouse forebrain reveals cell-type-specific transcriptional regulation. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 432–439 (2018).

  65. 65.

    Mezger, A. et al. High-throughput chromatin accessibility profiling at single-cell resolution. Nat. Commun. 9, 3647 (2018).

  66. 66.

    Clark, S. J. et al. scNMT-seq enables joint profiling of chromatin accessibility DNA methylation and transcription in single cells. Nat. Commun. 9, 781 (2018).

  67. 67.

    Sung, M.-H., Baek, S. & Hager, G. L. Genome-wide footprinting: ready for prime time? Nat. Methods 13, 222–228 (2016).

  68. 68.

    Stergachis, A. B. et al. Conservation of trans-acting circuitry during mammalian regulatory evolution. Nature 515, 365–370 (2014).

  69. 69.

    Denny, S. K. et al. Nfib promotes metastasis through a widespread increase in chromatin accessibility. Cell 166, 328–342 (2016). This paper shows that the metastatic TF NFIB exploits a weakly accessible binding site in primary tumours to initiate oncogenic accessibility remodelling.

  70. 70.

    Schep, A. N., Wu, B., Buenrostro, J. D. & Greenleaf, W. J. chromVAR: inferring transcription-factor-associated accessibility from single-cell epigenomic data. Nat. Methods 14, 975–978 (2017).

  71. 71.

    Sherwood, R. I. et al. Discovery of directional and nondirectional pioneer transcription factors by modeling DNase profile magnitude and shape. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 171–178 (2014).

  72. 72.

    Lango Allen, H. et al. Hundreds of variants clustered in genomic loci and biological pathways affect human height. Nature 467, 832–838 (2010).

  73. 73.

    Qu, K. et al. Individuality and variation of personal regulomes in primary human T cells. Cell Syst. 1, 51–61 (2015).

  74. 74.

    Maurano, M. T. et al. Systematic localization of common disease-associated variation in regulatory DNA. Science 337, 1190–1195 (2012).

  75. 75.

    Lareau, C. A. et al. Interrogation of human hematopoiesis at single-cell and single-variant resolution. Preprint at bioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/28/255224 (2018).

  76. 76.

    Deal, R. B., Henikoff, J. G. & Henikoff, S. Genome-wide kinetics of nucleosome turnover determined by metabolic labeling of histones. Science 328, 1161–1164 (2010).

  77. 77.

    Sung, M.-H., Guertin, M. J., Baek, S. & Hager, G. L. DNase footprint signatures are dictated by factor dynamics and DNA sequence. Mol. Cell 56, 275–285 (2014).

  78. 78.

    He, H. H. et al. Nucleosome dynamics define transcriptional enhancers. Nat. Genet. 42, 343–347 (2010).

  79. 79.

    El Gazzar, M., Liu, T., Yoza, B. K. & McCall, C. E. Dynamic and selective nucleosome repositioning during endotoxin tolerance. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 1259–1271 (2010).

  80. 80.

    Schones, D. E. et al. Dynamic regulation of nucleosome positioning in the human genome. Cell 132, 887–898 (2008).

  81. 81.

    Deaton, A. M. et al. Enhancer regions show high histone H3.3 turnover that changes during differentiation. eLife 5, e15316 (2016).

  82. 82.

    Lever, M. A., Th’ng, J. P., Sun, X. & Hendzel, M. J. Rapid exchange of histone H1.1 on chromatin in living human cells. Nature 408, 873–876 (2000).

  83. 83.

    Almer, A. & Hörz, W. Nuclease hypersensitive regions with adjacent positioned nucleosomes mark the gene boundaries of the PHO5/PHO3 locus in yeast. EMBO J. 5, 2681–2687 (1986).

  84. 84.

    Hartley, P. D. & Madhani, H. D. Mechanisms that specify promoter nucleosome location and identity. Cell 137, 445–458 (2009).

  85. 85.

    Yuan, G.-C. et al. Genome-scale identification of nucleosome positions in S. cerevisiae. Science 309, 626–630 (2005).

  86. 86.

    Segal, E. et al. A genomic code for nucleosome positioning. Nature 442, 772–778 (2006).

  87. 87.

    Voong, L. N. et al. Insights into nucleosome organization in mouse embryonic stem cells through chemical mapping. Cell 167, 1555–1570 (2016).

  88. 88.

    Risca, V. I. & Greenleaf, W. J. Unraveling the 3D genome: genomics tools for multiscale exploration. Trends Genet. 31, 357–372 (2015).

  89. 89.

    Gilchrist, D. A. et al. Pausing of RNA polymerase II disrupts DNA-specified nucleosome organization to enable precise gene regulation. Cell 143, 540–551 (2010). This paper shows that RNA polymerase II pausing increases gene expression at some loci by maintaining a nucleosome-depleted TSS.

  90. 90.

    Kornberg, R. The location of nucleosomes in chromatin: specific or statistical. Nature 292, 579–580 (1981).

  91. 91.

    Mavrich, T. N. et al. A barrier nucleosome model for statistical positioning of nucleosomes throughout the yeast genome. Genome Res. 18, 1073–1083 (2008).

  92. 92.

    Riposo, J. & Mozziconacci, J. Nucleosome positioning and nucleosome stacking: two faces of the same coin. Mol. Biosyst. 8, 1172–1178 (2012).

  93. 93.

    Moyle-Heyrman, G. et al. Chemical map of Schizosaccharomyces pombe reveals species-specific features in nucleosome positioning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20158–20163 (2013).

  94. 94.

    Müller, O. et al. Changing chromatin fiber conformation by nucleosome repositioning. Biophys. J. 107, 2141–2150 (2014).

  95. 95.

    Valouev, A. et al. Determinants of nucleosome organization in primary human cells. Nature 474, 516–520 (2011).

  96. 96.

    Grishkevich, V., Hashimshony, T. & Yanai, I. Core promoter T-blocks correlate with gene expression levels in. C. elegans. Genome Res. 21, 707–717 (2011).

  97. 97.

    Raveh-Sadka, T. et al. Manipulating nucleosome disfavoring sequences allows fine-tune regulation of gene expression in yeast. Nat. Genet. 44, 743–750 (2012).

  98. 98.

    Valouev, A. et al. A high-resolution, nucleosome position map of C. elegans reveals a lack of universal sequence-dictated positioning. Genome Res. 18, 1051–1063 (2008).

  99. 99.

    Tillo, D. et al. High nucleosome occupancy is encoded at human regulatory sequences. PLOS ONE 5, e9129 (2010).

  100. 100.

    Creyghton, M. P. et al. H2AZ is enriched at polycomb complex target genes in ES cells and is necessary for lineage commitment. Cell 135, 649–661 (2008).

  101. 101.

    Hu, G. et al. H2A. Z facilitates access of active and repressive complexes to chromatin in embryonic stem cell self-renewal and differentiation. Cell Stem Cell 12, 180–192 (2013).

  102. 102.

    Wang, Z. et al. Genome-wide mapping of HATs and HDACs reveals distinct functions in active and inactive genes. Cell 138, 1019–1031 (2009).

  103. 103.

    Scharf, A. N. D. et al. Monomethylation of lysine 20 on histone H4 facilitates chromatin maturation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 29, 57–67 (2009).

  104. 104.

    Fan, Y. et al. Histone H1 depletion in mammals alters global chromatin structure but causes specific changes in gene regulation. Cell 123, 1199–1212 (2005).

  105. 105.

    Thoma, F., Koller, T. & Klug, A. Involvement of histone H1 in the organization of the nucleosome and of the salt-dependent superstructures of chromatin. J. Cell Biol. 83, 403–427 (1979).

  106. 106.

    Li, G. & Reinberg, D. Chromatin higher-order structures and gene regulation. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 21, 175–186 (2011).

  107. 107.

    Ricci, M. A., Manzo, C., García-Parajo, M. F., Lakadamyali, M. & Cosma, M. P. Chromatin fibers are formed by heterogeneous groups of nucleosomes in vivo. Cell 160, 1145–1158 (2015).

  108. 108.

    Zhou, B.-R. et al. Structural mechanisms of nucleosome recognition by linker histones. Mol. Cell 59, 628–638 (2015).

  109. 109.

    Bednar, J. et al. Structure and dynamics of a 197bp nucleosome in complex with linker histone H1. Mol. Cell 66, 384–397 (2017).

  110. 110.

    Patterton, H. G., Landel, C. C., Landsman, D., Peterson, C. L. & Simpson, R. T. The biochemical and phenotypic characterization of Hho1p, the putative linker histone H1 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biol. Chem. 273, 7268–7276 (1998).

  111. 111.

    Ramón, A., Muro-Pastor, M. I., Scazzocchio, C. & Gonzalez, R. Deletion of the unique gene encoding a typical histone H1 has no apparent phenotype in Aspergillus nidulans. Mol. Microbiol. 35, 223–233 (2000).

  112. 112.

    Shen, X. & Gorovsky, M. A. Linker histone H1 regulates specific gene expression but not global transcription in vivo. Cell 86, 475–483 (1996).

  113. 113.

    Ushinsky, S. C. et al. Histone H1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 13, 151–161 (1997).

  114. 114.

    Thomas, J. O. & Stott, K. H1 and HMGB1: modulators of chromatin structure. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 40, 341–346 (2012).

  115. 115.

    Thomas, J. O. Histone H1: location and role. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 11, 312–317 (1999).

  116. 116.

    Juan, L. J., Utley, R. T., Vignali, M., Bohm, L. & Workman, J. L. H1-mediated repression of transcription factor binding to a stably positioned nucleosome. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 3635–3640 (1997).

  117. 117.

    Vignali, M. & Workman, J. L. Location and function of linker histones. Nat. Struct. Biol. 5, 1025–1028 (1998).

  118. 118.

    Torres, C. M. et al. The linker histone H1.0 generates epigenetic and functional intratumor heterogeneity. Science 353, aaf1644 (2016).

  119. 119.

    Machida, S. et al. Structural basis of heterochromatin formation by human HP1. Mol. Cell 69, 385–397 (2018).

  120. 120.

    Robinson, P. J. J. et al. 30 nm chromatin fibre decompaction requires both H4-K16 acetylation and linker histone eviction. J. Mol. Biol. 381, 816–825 (2008).

  121. 121.

    Wallrath, L. L. & Elgin, S. C. Position effect variegation in Drosophila is associated with an altered chromatin structure. Genes Dev. 9, 1263–1277 (1995).

  122. 122.

    Koslover, E. F., Fuller, C. J., Straight, A. F. & Spakowitz, A. J. Local geometry and elasticity in compact chromatin structure. Biophys. J. 99, 3941–3950 (2010).

  123. 123.

    Collepardo-Guevara, R. & Schlick, T. Chromatin fiber polymorphism triggered by variations of DNA linker lengths. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 8061–8066 (2014).

  124. 124.

    Barbi, M., Mozziconacci, J. & Victor, J.-M. How the chromatin fiber deals with topological constraints. Phys. Rev. E 71, 031910 (2005).

  125. 125.

    Nikitina, T., Norouzi, D., Grigoryev, S. A. & Zhurkin, V. B. DNA topology in chromatin is defined by nucleosome spacing. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700957 (2017).

  126. 126.

    Risca, V. I., Denny, S. K., Straight, A. F. & Greenleaf, W. J. Variable chromatin structure revealed by in situ spatially correlated DNA cleavage mapping. Nature 541, 237–241 (2017). This paper shows that nucleosomal packing is heterogeneous across the genome, with more frequent non-adjacent nucleosome contacts in heterochromatin than in euchromatin.

  127. 127.

    Schalch, T., Duda, S., Sargent, D. F. & Richmond, T. J. X-ray structure of a tetranucleosome and its implications for the chromatin fibre. Nature 436, 138–141 (2005).

  128. 128.

    Song, F. et al. Cryo-EM study of the chromatin fiber reveals a double helix twisted by tetranucleosomal units. Science 344, 376–380 (2014).

  129. 129.

    Hsieh, T.-H. S. et al. Mapping nucleosome resolution chromosome folding in yeast by Micro-C. Cell 162, 108–119 (2015).

  130. 130.

    Ou, H. D. et al. ChromEMT: Visualizing 3D chromatin structure and compaction in interphase and mitotic cells. Science 357, eaag0025 (2017). This paper shows that higher-order chromatin organization is heterogeneous across the genome and that chromatin density is the primary distinguishing property of heterochromatin and euchromatin.

  131. 131.

    Lara-Astiaso, D. et al. Immunogenetics. Chromatin state dynamics during blood formation. Science 345, 943–949 (2014). This paper shows that acquisition of H3K4me1 (a mark commonly observed at poised enhancers) during haematopoiesis is accompanied by an increase in chromatin accessibility.

  132. 132.

    Saeed, S. et al. Epigenetic programming of monocyte-to-macrophage differentiation and trained innate immunity. Science 345, 1251086 (2014).

  133. 133.

    Svaren, J., Klebanow, E., Sealy, L. & Chalkley, R. Analysis of the competition between nucleosome formation and transcription factor binding. J. Biol. Chem. 269, 9335–9344 (1994).

  134. 134.

    Workman, J. L. & Kingston, R. E. Nucleosome core displacement in vitro via a metastable transcription factor-nucleosome complex. Science 258, 1780–1784 (1992).

  135. 135.

    Swinstead, E. E., Paakinaho, V., Presman, D. M. & Hager, G. L. Pioneer factors and ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling factors interact dynamically — a new perspective: Multiple transcription factors can effect chromatin pioneer functions through dynamic interactions with ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling factors. Bioessays 38, 1150–1157 (2016).

  136. 136.

    Bao, X. et al. A novel ATAC-seq approach reveals lineage-specific reinforcement of the open chromatin landscape via cooperation between BAF and p63. Genome Biol. 16, 284 (2015).

  137. 137.

    Gertz, J. et al. Distinct properties of cell-type-specific and shared transcription factor binding sites. Mol. Cell 52, 25–36 (2013).

  138. 138.

    Commerford, S. L., Carsten, A. L. & Cronkite, E. P. Histone turnover within nonproliferating cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 79, 1163–1165 (1982).

  139. 139.

    Mirny, L. A. Nucleosome-mediated cooperativity between transcription factors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 22534–22539 (2010).

  140. 140.

    Miller, J. A. & Widom, J. Collaborative competition mechanism for gene activation in vivo. Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 1623–1632 (2003).

  141. 141.

    Ramachandran, S. & Henikoff, S. Transcriptional regulators compete with nucleosomes post-replication. Cell 165, 580–592 (2016).

  142. 142.

    Amodeo, A. A., Jukam, D., Straight, A. F. & Skotheim, J. M. Histone titration against the genome sets the DNA-to-cytoplasm threshold for the Xenopus midblastula transition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E1086–E1095 (2015).

  143. 143.

    Joseph, S. R. et al. Competition between histone and transcription factor binding regulates the onset of transcription in zebrafish embryos. eLife 6, e23326 (2017).

  144. 144.

    Gómez-Díaz, E. & Corces, V. G. Architectural proteins: regulators of 3D genome organization in cell fate. Trends Cell Biol. 24, 703–711 (2014).

  145. 145.

    Ramakrishnan, V. Histone structure and the organization of the nucleosome. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 26, 83–112 (1997).

  146. 146.

    Ramakrishnan, V. Histone H1 and chromatin higher-order structure. Crit. Rev. Eukaryot. Gene Expr 7, 215–230 (1997).

  147. 147.

    Lone, I. N. et al. Binding of NF-κB to nucleosomes: effect of translational positioning, nucleosome remodeling and linker histone H1. PLOS Genet. 9, e1003830 (2013).

  148. 148.

    Steger, D. J. & Workman, J. L. Stable co-occupancy of transcription factors and histones at the HIV-1 enhancer. EMBO J. 16, 2463–2472 (1997).

  149. 149.

    Cirillo, L. A. et al. Opening of compacted chromatin by early developmental transcription factors HNF3 (FoxA) and GATA-4. Mol. Cell 9, 279–289 (2002).

  150. 150.

    Glass, C. K. & Natoli, G. Molecular control of activation and priming in macrophages. Nat. Immunol. 17, 26–33 (2016).

  151. 151.

    Natoli, G. Control of NF-kappaB-dependent transcriptional responses by chromatin organization. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 1, a000224 (2009).

  152. 152.

    Vicent, G. P. et al. Four enzymes cooperate to displace histone H1 during the first minute of hormonal gene activation. Genes Dev. 25, 845–862 (2011).

  153. 153.

    Taberlay, P. C. et al. Polycomb-repressed genes have permissive enhancers that initiate reprogramming. Cell 147, 1283–1294 (2011). This paper introduces the NOMe-seq chromatin accessibility assay and shows that TF binding to a distal enhancer can facilitate cellular reprogramming by remodelling promoter-proximal accessibility in trans.

  154. 154.

    Almer, A., Rudolph, H., Hinnen, A. & Hörz, W. Removal of positioned nucleosomes from the yeast PHO5 promoter upon PHO5 induction releases additional upstream activating DNA elements. EMBO J. 5, 2689–2696 (1986).

  155. 155.

    Taylor, I. C., Workman, J. L., Schuetz, T. J. & Kingston, R. E. Facilitated binding of GAL4 and heat shock factor to nucleosomal templates: differential function of DNA-binding domains. Genes Dev. 5, 1285–1298 (1991).

  156. 156.

    McPherson, C. E., Shim, E. Y., Friedman, D. S. & Zaret, K. S. An active tissue-specific enhancer and bound transcription factors existing in a precisely positioned nucleosomal array. Cell 75, 387–398 (1993).

  157. 157.

    Zaret, K. S. & Carroll, J. S. Pioneer transcription factors: establishing competence for gene expression. Genes Dev. 25, 2227–2241 (2011).

  158. 158.

    Soufi, A. et al. Pioneer transcription factors target partial DNA motifs on nucleosomes to initiate reprogramming. Cell 161, 555–568 (2015).

  159. 159.

    Zaret, K. S. Pioneering the chromatin landscape. Nat. Genet. 50, 167–169 (2018).

  160. 160.

    Soufi, A., Donahue, G. & Zaret, K. S. Facilitators and impediments of the pluripotency reprogramming factors’ initial engagement with the genome. Cell 151, 994–1004 (2012).

  161. 161.

    Iwafuchi-Doi, M. et al. The pioneer transcription factor FoxA maintains an accessible nucleosome configuration at enhancers for tissue-specific gene activation. Mol. Cell 62, 79–91 (2016). This paper shows that the pioneer TF FOXA displaces histone H1 in murine liver.

  162. 162.

    Donaghey, J. et al. Genetic determinants and epigenetic effects of pioneer-factor occupancy. Nat. Genet. 50, 250–258 (2018).

  163. 163.

    Clark, D. J. & Felsenfeld, G. A nucleosome core is transferred out of the path of a transcribing polymerase. Cell 71, 11–22 (1992).

  164. 164.

    Clark, D. et al. Chromatin structure of transcriptionally active genes. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 58, 1–6 (1993).

  165. 165.

    Nagai, S., Davis, R. E., Mattei, P. J., Eagen, K. P. & Kornberg, R. D. Chromatin potentiates transcription. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 1536–1541 (2017).

  166. 166.

    Li, B., Carey, M. & Workman, J. L. The role of chromatin during transcription. Cell 128, 707–719 (2007).

  167. 167.

    Dogan, N. et al. Occupancy by key transcription factors is a more accurate predictor of enhancer activity than histone modifications or chromatin accessibility. Epigenetics Chromatin 8, 16 (2015).

  168. 168.

    Heinz, S., Romanoski, C. E., Benner, C. & Glass, C. K. The selection and function of cell type-specific enhancers. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 144–154 (2015).

  169. 169.

    Barski, A. et al. High-resolution profiling of histone methylations in the human genome. Cell 129, 823–837 (2007).

  170. 170.

    Schulz, K. N. et al. Zelda is differentially required for chromatin accessibility, transcription factor binding, and gene expression in the early Drosophila embryo. Genome Res. 25, 1715–1726 (2015).

  171. 171.

    Mognol, G. P. et al. Exhaustion-associated regulatory regions in CD8+tumor-infiltrating T cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E2776–E2785 (2017).

  172. 172.

    Amit, I. & Winter, D. R. The role of chromatin dynamics in immune cell development. Immunol. Rev. 261, 9–122 (2014).

  173. 173.

    Pereira, R. M., Hogan, P. G., Rao, A. & Martinez, G. J. Transcriptional and epigenetic regulation of T cell hyporesponsiveness. J. Leukoc. Biol. 102, 601–615 (2017).

  174. 174.

    Scott-Browne, J. P. et al. Dynamic changes in chromatin accessibility occur in CD8 + T cells responding to viral infection. Immunity 45, 1327–1340 (2016).

  175. 175.

    Qu, K. et al. Chromatin accessibility landscape of cutaneous T cell lymphoma and dynamic response to HDAC inhibitors. Cancer Cell 32, 27–41 (2017).

  176. 176.

    Satpathy, A. T. et al. Transcript-indexed ATAC-seq for precision immune profiling. Nat. Med. 24, 580–590 (2018).

  177. 177.

    Cao, J. et al. Joint profiling of chromatin accessibility and gene expression in thousands of single cells. Science 361, 1380–1385 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank M. Moria-Shipony for graphics assistance as well as A. Koh, V. Risca, G. Marinov, N. Sinnott-Armstrong and A. Trevino for critical feedback on this manuscript. This work was supported by the NIH (P50HG007735, UM1HG009442, U19AI057266 and 1UM1HG009436), the Rita Allen Foundation, the Baxter Foundation Faculty Scholar Grant and the Human Frontiers Science Program grant RGY006S. W.J.G is a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub investigator and acknowledges grants 2017-174468 and 2018-182817 from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Z.S. is supported by grants EMBO ALTF 1119-2016 and HFSP LT 000835/2017-L. S.K. has received support from a Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award (NRSA, NIH 5 T32 HG000044).

Reviewer information

Nature Reviews Genetics thanks D. Gifford, K. Rippe and the other, anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Author information

S.L.K., Z.S. and W.J.G. conceived and wrote the manuscript.

Competing interests

W.J.G. is a co-founder of Epinomics and an adviser to 10X Genomics, Guardant Health and Centrillion.

Correspondence to William J. Greenleaf.

Glossary

Chromatin-binding factors

Non-histone macromolecules that bind either directly or indirectly to DNA.

Transcription factor

(TF). A non-histone protein that directly binds to DNA.

Architectural proteins

Proteins that have a structural role in organizing chromatin, including linker and core histone proteins, as well as insulator proteins.

Nucleosome occupancy

The fraction of time that a particular sequence of DNA is bound by the core histone octamer.

Epigenetic canalization

A set of persistent epigenetic features (alternatively, the process of establishing this feature set) that molecularly defines a cell type and comprises a continuum of cellular states including cell cycle phases and activation states.

TF footprinting

High-resolution analysis of chromatin accessibility data to identify a local accessibility signature in the neighbourhood of putative binding sites for a particular transcription factor (TF). This signature reflects the size and binding mechanism, as well as other biophysical properties, of a TF.

Nucleosome turnover rates

The rates at which nucleosomes disassemble at particular genomic loci; alternatively, the inverse of the nucleosome residence times.

Poised enhancers

Inactive enhancers that do not regulate gene expression but share a subset of epigenetic features commonly observed at active enhancers, including histone H3 lysine 4 monomethylation (H3K4me)and accessibility.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark
Fig. 1: A continuum of accessibility states broadly reflects the distribution of chromatin dynamics across the genome.
Fig. 2: Principal methods for measuring chromatin accessibility.
Fig. 3: Population-scale measurements of chromatin accessibility reflect the average accessibility of a heterogeneous collection of single molecules.
Fig. 4: Nucleosome turnover and occupancy are inversely correlated across a broad range of genomic regions.
Fig. 5: Models of chromatin accessibility remodelling.