Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Long-range interactions between topologically associating domains shape the four-dimensional genome during differentiation

Nature Genetics volume 51, pages 835–843 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Genomic information is selectively used to direct spatial and temporal gene expression during differentiation. Interactions between topologically associating domains (TADs) and between chromatin and the nuclear lamina organize and position chromosomes in the nucleus. However, how these genomic organizers together shape genome architecture is unclear. Here, using a dual-lineage differentiation system, we report long-range TAD–TAD interactions that form constitutive and variable TAD cliques. A differentiation-coupled relationship between TAD cliques and lamina-associated domains suggests that TAD cliques stabilize heterochromatin at the nuclear periphery. We also provide evidence of dynamic TAD cliques during mouse embryonic stem-cell differentiation and somatic cell reprogramming and of inter-TAD associations in single-cell high-resolution chromosome conformation capture (Hi-C) data. TAD cliques represent a level of four-dimensional genome conformation that reinforces the silencing of repressed developmental genes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Pair-wise TAD–TAD interactions during adipogenic differentiation.
Fig. 2: TAD cliques form associations of repressed domains enriched in B compartments.
Fig. 3: TAD clique assembly is associated with downregulation of gene expression.
Fig. 4: Differentiation promotes TAD clique formation and association of LADs with cliques.
Fig. 5: Three-dimensional structural models of the genome reveal spatial clustering of TADs.
Fig. 6: TAD cliques show lineage specificity.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Hi-C, RNA-seq, lamin B1 ChIP–seq and H3K9me3 ChIP–seq data generated during this study are available at NCBI GEO under accession number GSE109924 without any restrictions. ChIP-seq data were downloaded from Roadmap Epigenomics55 (datasets E023 and E025; H3K4me3, H3K9me3, H3K27me3 and H3K36me3) and from NCBI GEO GSE20752 (CTCF)56. Hi-C data for the differentiation of mouse ES cells were downloaded from NCBI GEO GSE96107. Hi-C data for mouse B cell reprogramming were downloaded from NCBI GEO GSE96611. RNA-sequencing data for adipose differentiation26 were downloaded from NCBI GEO GSE60237. Mouse consensus LAD data36 were downloaded from NCBI GEO GSE17051. LOCK data32 were downloaded from NCBI GEO GSE71809. Figures with the associated raw data cited here are Figs. 1–6 and Supplementary Figs. 1–5 and 7–11.

References

  1. Rowley, M. J. & Corces, V. G. Organizational principles of 3D genome architecture. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 789–800 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Beagrie, R. A. et al. Complex multi-enhancer contacts captured by genome architecture mapping. Nature 543, 519–524 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fraser, J. et al. Hierarchical folding and reorganization of chromosomes are linked to transcriptional changes in cellular differentiation. Mol. Syst. Biol. 11, 852 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rubin, A. J. et al. Lineage-specific dynamic and pre-established enhancer–promoter contacts cooperate in terminal differentiation. Nat. Genet. 49, 1522–1528 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Siersbaek, R. et al. Dynamic rewiring of promoter-anchored chromatin loops during adipocyte differentiation. Mol. Cell 66, 420–435 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonev, B. et al. Multiscale 3D genome rewiring during mouse neural development. Cell 171, 557–572 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Niskanen, H. et al. Endothelial cell differentiation is encompassed by changes in long range interactions between inactive chromatin regions. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 1724–1740 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Olivares-Chauvet, P. et al. Capturing pairwise and multi-way chromosomal conformations using chromosomal walks. Nature 540, 296–300 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Szabo, Q. et al. TADs are 3D structural units of higher-order chromosome organization in Drosophila. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar8082 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bintu, B. et al. Super-resolution chromatin tracing reveals domains and cooperative interactions in single cells. Science 362, eaau1783 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Quinodoz, S. A. et al. Higher-order inter-chromosomal hubs shape 3D genome organization in the nucleus. Cell 174, 744–757 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang, S. et al. Spatial organization of chromatin domains and compartments in single chromosomes. Science 353, 598–602 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang, H. et al. CRISPR-mediated programmable 3D genome positioning and nuclear organization. Cell 175, 1405–1417 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Buchwalter, A., Kaneshiro, J. M. & Hetzer, M. W. Coaching from the sidelines: the nuclear periphery in genome regulation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 20, 39–50 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Poleshko, A. et al. Genome–nuclear lamina interactions regulate cardiac stem cell lineage restriction. Cell 171, 573–587 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Robson, M. I. et al. Constrained release of lamina-associated enhancers and genes from the nuclear envelope during T-cell activation facilitates their association in chromosome compartments. Genome Res. 27, 1126–1138 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Paulsen, J. et al. Chrom3D: three-dimensional genome modeling from Hi-C and nuclear lamin–genome contacts. Genome Biol. 18, 21 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Phillips-Cremins, J. E. et al. Architectural protein subclasses shape 3D organization of genomes during lineage commitment. Cell 153, 1281–1295 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lupianez, D. G., Spielmann, M. & Mundlos, S. Breaking TADs: how alterations of chromatin domains result in disease. Trends Genet. 32, 225–237 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cremer, T. et al. The 4D nucleome: evidence for a dynamic nuclear landscape based on co-aligned active and inactive nuclear compartments. FEBS Lett. 589, 2931–2943 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rønningen, T. et al. Prepatterning of differentiation-driven nuclear lamin A/C-associated chromatin domains by GlcNAcylated histone H2B. Genome Res. 25, 1825–1835 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shah, A., Oldenburg, A. & Collas, P. A hyper-dynamic nature of bivalent promoter states underlies coordinated developmental gene expression modules. BMC Genomics 15, 1186 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gonzalez-Sandoval, A. & Gasser, S. M. On TADs and LADs: spatial control over gene expression. Trends Genet. 32, 485–495 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Paulsen, J., Rodland, E. A., Holden, L., Holden, M. & Hovig, E. A statistical model of ChIA-PET data for accurate detection of chromatin 3D interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, e143 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Federico, C., Andreozzi, L., Saccone, S. & Bernardi, G. Gene density in the Giemsa bands of human chromosomes. Chromosome Res. 8, 737–746 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wen, B., Wu, H., Shinkai, Y., Irizarry, R. A. & Feinberg, A. P. Large histone H3 lysine 9 dimethylated chromatin blocks distinguish differentiated from embryonic stem cells. Nat. Genet. 41, 246–250 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Salzberg, A. C. et al. Genome-wide mapping of histone H3K9me2 in acute myeloid leukemia reveals large chromosomal domains associated with massive gene silencing and sites of genome instability. PLoS ONE 12, e0173723 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Paulsen, J., Liyakat Ali, T. M. & Collas, P. Computational 3D genome modeling using Chrom3D. Nat Protoc. 13, 1137–1152 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kind, J. et al. Genome-wide maps of nuclear lamina interactions in single human cells. Cell 163, 134–147 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Boulland, J. L. et al. Epigenetic regulation of nestin expression during neurogenic differentiation of adipose tissue stem cells. Stem Cells Dev. 22, 1042–1052 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Peric-Hupkes, D. et al. Molecular maps of the reorganization of genome–nuclear lamina interactions during differentiation. Mol. Cell 38, 603–613 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Stadhouders, R. et al. Transcription factors orchestrate dynamic interplay between genome topology and gene regulation during cell reprogramming. Nat. Genet. 50, 238–249 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Nagano, T. et al. Cell-cycle dynamics of chromosomal organization at single-cell resolution. Nature 547, 61–67 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sanborn, A. L. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Boettiger, A. N. et al. Super-resolution imaging reveals distinct chromatin folding for different epigenetic states. Nature 529, 418–422 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Rao, S. S. P. et al. Cohesin loss eliminates all loop domains. Cell 171, 305–320 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Larson, A. G. et al. Liquid droplet formation by HP1ɑ suggests a role for phase separation in heterochromatin. Nature 547, 236–240 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Strom, A. R. et al. Phase separation drives heterochromatin domain formation. Nature 547, 241–245 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kundaje, A. et al. Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature 518, 317–330 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Boquest, A. C. et al. Isolation and transcription profiling of purified uncultured human stromal stem cells: alteration of gene expression after in vitro cell culture. Mol. Biol. Cell 16, 1131–1141 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Trapnell, C. et al. Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 511–515 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Trapnell, C. et al. Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with TopHat and Cufflinks. Nat. Protoc. 7, 562–578 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Reimand, J. et al. g:Profiler—a web server for functional interpretation of gene lists (2016 update). Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W83–W89 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Langmead, B., Trapnell, C., Pop, M. & Salzberg, S. L. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol. 10, R25 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lund, E. G., Oldenburg, A. R. & Collas, P. Enriched domain detector: a program for detection of wide genomic enrichment domains robust against local variations. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, e92 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Belton, J. M. et al. Hi-C: a comprehensive technique to capture the conformation of genomes. Methods 58, 268–276 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Imakaev, M. et al. Iterative correction of Hi-C data reveals hallmarks of chromosome organization. Nat. Methods 9, 999–1003 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Durand, N. C. et al. Juicebox provides a visualization system for Hi-C contact maps with unlimited zoom. Cell Syst. 3, 99–101 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Filippova, D., Patro, R., Duggal, G. & Kingsford, C. Identification of alternative topological domains in chromatin. Algorithms Mol. Biol. 9, 14 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium et al. Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes. Nature 518, 317–330 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mikkelsen, T. S. et al. Comparative epigenomic analysis of murine and human adipogenesis. Cell 143, 156–169 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Quinlan, A. R. & Hall, I. M. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics 26, 841–842 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Bron, C. & J., K. Algorithm 457: finding all cliques of an undirected graph. Commun. ACM 16, 575–577 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sandve, G. K. et al. The Genomic HyperBrowser: an analysis web server for genome-scale data. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, W133–W141 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank K. Vekterud and A. Sørensen for expert technical assistance. We thank the Genomics Core Facility of Oslo University Hospital and the Biomolecular Resource Facility at the John Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University, for sequencing services. This work was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (no. 1104340 to D.T.), EU Scientia Fellowship FP7-PEOPLE-2013-COFUND (no. 609020 to M.-O.B.), the Research Council of Norway (no. 249734 to P.C.), The Norwegian Cancer Society (no. 6822903 to E.D. and no. 190299-2017 to P.C.) and South-East Health Norway (no. 2018082 to P.C.).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Tharvesh M. Liyakat Ali, Maxim Nekrasov.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular Medicine, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Jonas Paulsen, Tharvesh M. Liyakat Ali, Erwan Delbarre, Marie-Odile Baudement & Philippe Collas

  2. Department of Genome Sciences, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    Maxim Nekrasov, Sebastian Kurscheid & David Tremethick

  3. Biomolecular Research Facility, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    Maxim Nekrasov

  4. Norwegian Center for Stem Cell Research, Department of Immunology and Transfusion Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Philippe Collas

Authors
  1. Jonas Paulsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tharvesh M. Liyakat Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maxim Nekrasov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erwan Delbarre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marie-Odile Baudement
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sebastian Kurscheid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Tremethick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Philippe Collas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.P. and P.C. designed the study; J.P., T.M.L.A., D.T. and P.C. wrote the manuscript; J.P., T.M.L.A. and S.K. did bioinformatics analyses; E.D. analyzed FISH data and wrote methods; M.N. and M.-O.B. did Hi-C and ChIP experiments; D.T. and P.C. supervised the work.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to David Tremethick or Philippe Collas.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–11

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Table 1

Statistics for indicated figures.

Supplementary Table 2

Gene ontology terms enriched for genes in dynamic TAD cliques during adipose differentiation.

Supplementary Table 3

Gene ontology terms enriched for genes in cliques and not in cliques, which are downregulated during adipose differentiation.

Supplementary Table 4

FISH probe information.

Supplementary Table 5

Genes contained in adipose- and neuronalspecific TAD cliques on D3 of differentiation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paulsen, J., Liyakat Ali, T.M., Nekrasov, M. et al. Long-range interactions between topologically associating domains shape the four-dimensional genome during differentiation. Nat Genet 51, 835–843 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-019-0392-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-019-0392-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing