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 single-molecule mapping of chromatin accessibility in eukaryotes

Nature Methods volume 17, pages 319–327 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Mapping open chromatin regions has emerged as a widely used tool for identifying active regulatory elements in eukaryotes. However, existing approaches, limited by reliance on DNA fragmentation and short-read sequencing, cannot provide information about large-scale chromatin states or reveal coordination between the states of distal regulatory elements. We have developed a method for profiling the accessibility of individual chromatin fibers, a single-molecule long-read accessible chromatin mapping sequencing assay (SMAC-seq), enabling the simultaneous, high-resolution, single-molecule assessment of chromatin states at multikilobase length scales. Our strategy is based on combining the preferential methylation of open chromatin regions by DNA methyltransferases with low sequence specificity, in this case EcoGII, an N6-methyladenosine (m6A) methyltransferase, and the ability of nanopore sequencing to directly read DNA modifications. We demonstrate that aggregate SMAC-seq signals match bulk-level accessibility measurements, observe single-molecule nucleosome and transcription factor protection footprints, and quantify the correlation between chromatin states of distal genomic elements.

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: The SMAC-seq assay for profiling chromatin accessibility and nucleosome positioning at the multikilobase scale.
Fig. 2: SMAC-seq provides a single-molecule linked-read view of the chromatin landscape.
Fig. 3: SMAC-seq’s single-molecule readout provides insights into the distribution and relationship between mutually exclusive chromatin yeast rDNA states.
Fig. 4: SMAC-seq provides a high-resolution strand-specific view of genomic occupancy by DNA-binding proteins and complexes.
Fig. 5: Coordinated changes in chromatin accessibility and nucleosomal occupancy during the yeast stress response.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Short-read datasets associated with this study are available through GEO accession GSE128290. Nanopore data are available through SRA BioProject PRJNA594057. Nanopore raw data are available at https://zoharshiponh.s3.amazonaws.com/NMETH_2020/index.html.

References

  1. Wu, C. The 5′ ends of Drosophila heat shock genes in chromatin are hypersensitive to DNase I. Nature 286, 854–860 (1980).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Keene, M. A., Corces, V., Lowenhaupt, K. & Elgin, S. C. DNase I hypersensitive sites in Drosophila chromatin occur at the 5′ ends of regions of transcription. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 143–146 (1981).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. McGhee, J. D., Wood, W. I., Dolan, M., Engel, J. D. & Felsenfeld, G. A 200 base pair region at the 5′ end of the chicken adult β-globin gene is accessible to nuclease digestion. Cell 27, 45–55 (1981).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dorschner, M. O. et al. High-throughput localization of functional elements by quantitative chromatin profiling. Nat. Methods 1, 219–225 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sabo, P. J. et al. Genome-scale mapping of DNase I sensitivity in vivo using tiling DNA microarrays. Nat. Methods 3, 511–518 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boyle, A. P. et al. High-resolution mapping and characterization of open chromatin across the genome. Cell 132, 311–322 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Nabilsi, N. H. et al. Multiplex mapping of chromatin accessibility and DNA methylation within targeted single molecules identifies epigenetic heterogeneity in neural stem cells and glioblastoma. Genome Res. 24, 329–339 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Krebs, A. R. et al. Genome-wide single-molecule footprinting reveals high RNA polymerase II turnover at paused promoters. Mol. Cell 67, 411–422.e4 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Murray, I. A. et al. The non-specific adenine DNA methyltransferase M.EcoGII. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 840–848 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Simpson, J. T. et al. Detecting DNA cytosine methylation using nanopore sequencing. Nat. Methods 14, 407–410 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rand, A. C. et al. Mapping DNA methylation with high-throughput nanopore sequencing. Nat. Methods 14, 411–413 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Feng, S. et al. Conservation and divergence of methylation patterning in plants and animals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 8689–8694 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Zemach, A., McDaniel, I. E., Silva, P. & Zilberman, D. Genome-wide evolutionary analysis of eukaryotic DNA methylation. Science 328, 916–919 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lister, R. et al. Highly integrated single-base resolution maps of the epigenome in Arabidopsis. Cell 133, 523–536 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Brogaard, K., Xi, L., Wang, J. P. & Widom, J. A map of nucleosome positions in yeast at base-pair resolution. Nature 486, 496–501 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Stoiber, M. H. et al. De novo identification of DNA modifications enabled by genome-guided nanopore signal processing. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/094672 (2017).

  21. Li, H. Minimap and miniasm: fast mapping and de novo assembly for noisy long sequences. Bioinformatics 32, 2103–2110 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Cole, H. A., Howard, B. H. & Clark, D. J. The centromeric nucleosome of budding yeast is perfectly positioned and covers the entire centromere. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12687–12692 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Henikoff, S. et al. The budding yeast centromere DNA element II wraps a stable Cse4 hemisome in either orientation in vivo. Elife 3, e01861 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Conconi, A., Widmer, R. M., Koller, T. & Sogo, J. M. Two different chromatin structures coexist in ribosomal RNA genes throughout the cell cycle. Cell 57, 753–761 (1989).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. French, S. L., Osheim, Y. N., Cioci, F., Nomura, M. & Beyer, A. L. In exponentially growing Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells, rRNA synthesis is determined by the summed RNA polymerase I loading rate rather than by the number of active genes. Mol. Cell Biol. 23, 1558–1568 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Goetze, H. et al. Alternative chromatin structures of the 35S rRNA genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae provide a molecular basis for the selective recruitment of RNA polymerases I and II. Mol. Cell Biol. 30, 2028–2045 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Merz, K. et al. Actively transcribed rRNA genes in S. cerevisiae are organized in a specialized chromatin associated with the high-mobility group protein Hmo1 and are largely devoid of histone molecules. Genes Dev. 22, 1190–1204 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Panday, A. & Grove, A. Yeast HMO1: linker histone reinvented. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 81, e00037–16 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Jones, H. S. et al. RNA polymerase I in yeast transcribes dynamic nucleosomal rDNA. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 14, 123–130 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Huang, J. & Moazed, D. Association of the RENT complex with nontranscribed and coding regions of rDNA and a regional requirement for the replication fork block protein Fob1 in rDNA silencing. Genes Dev. 17, 2162–2176 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhu, F. et al. The interaction landscape between transcription factors and the nucleosome. Nature 562, 76–81 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. O’Sullivan, J. M. et al. Gene loops juxtapose promoters and terminators in yeast. Nat Genet 36, 1014–1018 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tan-Wong, S. M. et al. Gene loops enhance transcriptional directionality. Science 338, 671–675 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Weiner, A. et al. High-resolution chromatin dynamics during a yeast stress response. Mol. Cell 58, 371–386 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Morano, K. A., Grant, C. M. & Moye-Rowley, W. S. The response to heat shock and oxidative stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 190, 1157–1195 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Gabrieli, T. et al. Selective nanopore sequencing of human BRCA1 by Cas9-assisted targeting of chromosome segments (CATCH). Nucleic Acids Res. 46, e87 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Staševskij, Z., Gibas, P., Gordevičius, J., Kriukienė, E. & Klimašauskas, S. Tethered oligonucleotide-primed sequencing, TOP-Seq: a high-resolution economical approach for DNA epigenome profiling. Mol. Cell 65, 554–564.e6 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Fu, Y., Sinha, M., Peterson, C. L. & Weng, Z. The insulator binding protein CTCF positions 20 nucleosomes around its binding sites across the human genome. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000138 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Fu, Y. et al. N6-methyldeoxyadenosine marks active transcription start sites in Chlamydomonas. Cell 161, 879–892 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Wang, Y., Chen, X., Sheng, Y., Liu, Y. & Gao, S. N6-adenine DNA methylation is associated with the linker DNA of H2A.Z-containing well-positioned nucleosomes in Pol II-transcribed genes in Tetrahymena. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 11594–11606 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Luo, G. Z. et al. N6-methyldeoxyadenosine directs nucleosome positioning in Tetrahymena DNA. Genome Biol. 19, 200 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Timinskas, A., Butkus, V. & Janulaitis, A. Sequence motifs characteristic for DNA [cytosine-N4] and DNA [adenine-N6] methyltransferases. Classification of all DNA methyltransferases. Gene 157, 3–11 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Salter, J. D., Bennett, R. P. & Smith, H. C. The APOBEC protein family: united by structure, divergent in function. Trends Biochem. Sci. 41, 578–594 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Kawasaki, F. et al. Genome-wide mapping of 5-hydroxymethyluracil in the eukaryote parasite Leishmania. Genome Biol. 18, 23 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Miura, F., Enomoto, Y., Dairiki, R. & Ito, T. Amplification-free whole-genome bisulfite sequencing by post-bisulfite adaptor tagging. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, e136 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Krueger, F. & Andrews, S. R. Bismark: a flexible aligner and methylation caller for Bisulfite-Seq applications. Bioinformatics 27, 1571–1572 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 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  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Hu, B. et al. Biological chromodynamics: a general method for measuring protein occupancy across the genome by calibrating ChIP-seq. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e132 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Feng, J., Liu, T., Qin, B., Zhang, Y. & Liu, X. S. Identifying ChIP-seq enrichment using MACS. Nat. Protoc. 7, 1728–1740 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 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  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Grant, C. E., Bailey, T. L. & Noble, W. S. FIMO: scanning for occurrences of a given motif. Bioinformatics 27, 1017–1018 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Bailey, T. L. et al. MEME SUITE: tools for motif discovery and searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, W202–208 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Weirauch, M. T. et al. Determination and inference of eukaryotic transcription factor sequence specificity. Cell 158, 1431–1443 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Pelechano, V., Wei, W. & Steinmetz, L. M. Extensive transcriptional heterogeneity revealed by isoform profiling. Nature 497, 127–131 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Ramachandran, S., Zentner, G. E. & Henikoff, S. Asymmetric nucleosomes flank promoters in the budding yeast genome. Genome Res. 25, 381–390 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Chereji, R. V., Ramachandran, S., Bryson, T. D. & Henikoff, S. Precise genome-wide mapping of single nucleosomes and linkers in vivo. Genome Biol. 19, 19 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grants (nos. P50HG007735, RO1 HG008140, U19AI057266 and UM1HG009442 to W.J.G., 1UM1HG009436 to W.J.G. and A.K., 1DP2OD022870-01 and 1U01HG009431 to A.K.), the Rita Allen Foundation (to W.J.G.), the Baxter Foundation Faculty Scholar Grant and the Human Frontiers Science Program grant RGY006S (to W.J.G). W.J.G is a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub investigator and acknowledges grant nos. 2017-174468 and 2018-182817 from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Z.S. is supported by EMBO Long-Term Fellowship EMBO ALTF 1119-2016 and by Human Frontier Science Program Long-Term Fellowship HFSP LT 000835/2017-L. G.K.M. is supported by the Stanford School of Medicine Dean’s Fellowship. N.A.S.A. is funded by the Department of Defense through a National Defense Science and Engineering Grant and by a Stanford Graduate Fellowship. We also thank members of the Greenleaf and Kundaje laboratories for their helpful suggestions and discussions on the subject over the course of the study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Zohar Shipony, Georgi K. Marinov.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Zohar Shipony, Georgi K. Marinov, Nicholas A. Sinnott-Armstrong, Anshul Kundaje & William J. Greenleaf

  2. Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Matthew P. Swaffer & Jan M. Skotheim

  3. Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Anshul Kundaje

  4. Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    William J. Greenleaf

  5. Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA, USA

    William J. Greenleaf

Authors
  1. Zohar Shipony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georgi K. Marinov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew P. Swaffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicholas A. Sinnott-Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan M. Skotheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anshul Kundaje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. William J. Greenleaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Z.S., G.K.M. and N.A.S.A. conceived and designed the study. Z.S., G.K.M. and N.A.S.A. performed initial experiments. Z.S., M.P.S. and G.K.M. performed diamide time course experiments. G.K.M. and Z.S. analyzed data. W.J.G., A.K. and J.M.S. supervised the study. G.K.M., Z.S., W.J.G. and A.K. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William J. Greenleaf.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nicole Rusk and Lei Tang were the primary editors on this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–4 and Figs. 1–73.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shipony, Z., Marinov, G.K., Swaffer, M.P. et al. Long-range single-molecule mapping of chromatin accessibility in eukaryotes. Nat Methods 17, 319–327 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0730-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0730-2

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