Current understanding of chromosome folding is largely reliant on chromosome conformation capture (3C)-based experiments, where chromosomal interactions are detected as ligation products after chromatin crosslinking. To measure chromosome structure in vivo, quantitatively and without crosslinking and ligation, we implemented a modified version of DNA adenine methyltransferase identification (DamID) named DamC, which combines DNA methylation-based detection of chromosomal interactions with next-generation sequencing and biophysical modeling of methylation kinetics. DamC performed in mouse embryonic stem cells provides the first in vivo validation of the existence of topologically associating domains (TADs), CTCF loops and confirms 3C-based measurements of the scaling of contact probabilities. Combining DamC with transposon-mediated genomic engineering shows that new loops can be formed between ectopic and endogenous CTCF sites, which redistributes physical interactions within TADs. DamC provides the first crosslinking- and ligation-free demonstration of the existence of key structural features of chromosomes and provides novel insights into how chromosome structure within TADs can be manipulated.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters Open Access 06 March 2023
Nature Genetics Open Access 05 December 2022
Building regulatory landscapes reveals that an enhancer can recruit cohesin to create contact domains, engage CTCF sites and activate distant genes
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology Open Access 16 June 2022
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$189.00 per year
only $15.75 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
The sequencing data from this study, including bedgraph files for the visualization of DamC and 4C profiles from all samples described in the manuscript, are available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus with accession code GEO GSE128017. A University of California, Santa Cruz session containing all the DamC and 4C tracks used can be found at https://genome.ucsc.edu/s/zhan/DamC_publication_2019. The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited with the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE72 partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD013507. Source data for Figs. 1 and 3–7 and Supplementary Figs. 1–3, 5 and 6 are available online.
The custom-made codes used to analyze the data are available at https://github.com/zhanyinx/NMSB_2019_redolfi_et_al.
Denker, A. & de Laat, Wde The second decade of 3C technologies: detailed insights into nuclear organization. Genes Dev. 30, 1357–1382 (2016).
Lieberman-Aiden, E. et al. Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science 326, 289–293 (2009).
Rao, S. S. P. et al. A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell 159, 1665–1680 (2014).
Norton, H. K. et al. Detecting hierarchical genome folding with network modularity. Nat. Methods 15, 119–122 (2018).
Fraser, J. et al. Hierarchical folding and reorganization of chromosomes are linked to transcriptional changes in cellular differentiation. Mol. Syst. Biol. 11, 852–852 (2015).
Nora, E. P. et al. Spatial partitioning of the regulatory landscape of the X-inactivation centre. Nature 485, 381–385 (2012).
Dixon, J. R. et al. Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions. Nature 485, 376–380 (2012).
Sexton, T. et al. Three-dimensional folding and functional organization principles of the Drosophila genome. Cell 148, 458–472 (2012).
Zhan, Y. et al. Reciprocal insulation analysis of Hi-C data shows that TADs represent a functionally but not structurally privileged scale in the hierarchical folding of chromosomes. Genome Res. 27, 479–490 (2017).
Zuin, J. et al. Cohesin and CTCF differentially affect chromatin architecture and gene expression in human cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 996–1001 (2014).
Nora, E. P. et al. Targeted degradation of CTCF decouples local insulation of chromosome domains from genomic compartmentalization. Cell 169, 930–944.e22 (2017).
de Wit, E. et al. CTCF binding polarity determines chromatin looping. Mol. Cell 60, 676–684 (2015).
Guo, Y. et al. CRISPR Inversion of CTCF sites alters genome topology and enhancer/promoter function. Cell 162, 900–910 (2015).
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).
Fudenberg, G. et al. Formation of chromosomal domains by loop extrusion. Cell Rep. 15, 2038–2049 (2016).
Gavrilov, A., Razin, S. V. & Cavalli, G. In vivo formaldehyde cross-linking: it is time for black box analysis. Brief. Funct. Genom. 14, 163–165 (2015).
Gavrilov, A. A. et al. Disclosure of a structural milieu for the proximity ligation reveals the elusive nature of an active chromatin hub. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 3563–3575 (2013).
Williamson, I. et al. Spatial genome organization: contrasting views from chromosome conformation capture and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Genes Dev. 28, 2778–2791 (2014).
Belmont, A. S. Large-scale chromatin organization: the good, the surprising, and the still perplexing. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 26, 69–78 (2014).
Fudenberg, G. & Mirny, L. A. Higher-order chromatin structure: bridging physics and biology. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 22, 115–124 (2012).
Tiana, G. & Giorgetti, L. Integrating experiment, theory and simulation to determine the structure and dynamics of mammalian chromosomes. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 49, 11–17 (2018).
Alipour, E. & Marko, J. F. Self-organization of domain structures by DNA-loop-extruding enzymes. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 11202–11212 (2012).
Nichols, M. H. & Corces, V. G. A CTCF code for 3D genome architecture. Cell 162, 703–705 (2015).
Wang, S. et al. Spatial organization of chromatin domains and compartments in single chromosomes. Science 353, 598–602 (2016).
Beagrie, R. A. et al. Complex multi-enhancer contacts captured by genome architecture mapping. Nature 543, 519–524 (2017).
Brant, L. et al. Exploiting native forces to capture chromosome conformation in mammalian cell nuclei. Mol. Syst. Biol. 12, 891 (2016).
Quinodoz, S. A. et al. Higher-order inter-chromosomal hubs shape 3D genome organization in the nucleus. Cell 174, 744–757.e24 (2018).
Lebrun, E., Fourel, G., Defossez, P.-A. & Gilson, E. A methyltransferase targeting assay reveals silencer-telomere interactions in budding yeast. Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 1498–1508 (2003).
Cléard, F., Moshkin, Y., Karch, F. & Maeda, R. K. Probing long-distance regulatory interactions in the Drosophila melanogaster bithorax complex using Dam identification. Nat. Genet. 38, 931–935 (2006).
Steensel, Bvan & Henikoff, S. Identification of in vivo DNA targets of chromatin proteins using tethered Dam methyltransferase. Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 424–428 (2000).
Dekker, J., Rippe, K., Dekker, M. & Kleckner, N. Capturing chromosome conformation. Science 295, 1306–1311 (2002).
van de Werken, H. J. G. et al. Robust 4C-seq data analysis to screen for regulatory DNA interactions. Nat. Methods 9, 969–972 (2012).
Masui, O. et al. Live-cell chromosome dynamics and outcome of X chromosome pairing events during ES cell differentiation. Cell 145, 447–458 (2011).
Peric-Hupkes, D. et al. Molecular maps of the reorganization of genome-nuclear lamina interactions during differentiation. Mol. Cell 38, 603–613 (2010).
Kind, J. et al. Single-cell dynamics of genome-nuclear lamina interactions. Cell 153, 178–192 (2013).
Cadiñanos, J. & Bradley, A. Generation of an inducible and optimized piggyBac transposon system. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, e87 (2007).
Kamionka, A., Bogdanska‐Urbaniak, J., Scholz, O. & Hillen, W. Two mutations in the tetracycline repressor change the inducer anhydrotetracycline to a corepressor. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 842–847 (2004).
Giorgetti, L. et al. Predictive polymer modeling reveals coupled fluctuations in chromosome conformation and transcription. Cell 157, 950–963 (2014).
Hou, C., Zhao, H., Tanimoto, K. & Dean, A. CTCF-dependent enhancer-blocking by alternative chromatin loop formation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 20398–20403 (2008).
Rawat, P., Jalan, M., Sadhu, A., Kanaujia, A. & Srivastava, M. Chromatin domain organization of the TCRb Locus and its perturbation by ectopic CTCF binding. Mol. Cell. Biol. 37, e00557–16 (2017).
Geeven, G., Teunissen, H., de Laat, W. & de Wit, E. peakC: a flexible, non-parametric peak calling package for 4C and Capture-C data. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, e91 (2018).
Vian, L. et al. The energetics and physiological impact of cohesin extrusion. Cell 173, 1165–1178.e20 (2018).
Bonev, B. et al. Multiscale 3D genome rewiring during mouse neural development. Cell 171, 557–572.e24 (2017).
Scolari, V. F., Mercy, G., Koszul, R., Lesne, A. & Mozziconacci, J. Kinetic signature of cooperativity in the irreversible collapse of a polymer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 057801 (2018).
Hsieh, T.-H. S. et al. Mapping nucleosome resolution chromosome folding in yeast by micro-C. Cell 162, 108–119 (2015).
Dekker, J. & Mirny, L. The 3D genome as moderator of chromosomal communication. Cell 164, 1110–1121 (2016).
Erickson, H. P. Size and shape of protein molecules at the nanometer level determined by sedimentation, gel filtration, and electron microscopy. Biol. Proced. Online 11, 32 (2009).
Brackley, C. A. et al. Predicting the three-dimensional folding of cis-regulatory regions in mammalian genomes using bioinformatic data and polymer models. Genome Biol. 17, 59 (2016).
Kalhor, R., Tjong, H., Jayathilaka, N., Alber, F. & Chen, L. Genome architectures revealed by tethered chromosome conformation capture and population-based modeling. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 90–98 (2012).
Rosa, A. & Everaers, R. Structure and dynamics of interphase chromosomes. PLOS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000153 (2008).
La Fortezza, M. et al. DamID profiling of dynamic Polycomb-binding sites in Drosophila imaginal disc development and tumorigenesis. Epigenetics Chromatin 11, 27 (2018).
Tosti, L. et al. Mapping transcription factor occupancy using minimal numbers of cells in vitro and in vivo. Genome Res. 28, 592–605 (2018).
Tiana, G. et al. Structural fluctuations of the chromatin fiber within topologically associating domains. Biophys. J. 110, 1234–1245 (2016).
Gu, B. et al. Transcription-coupled changes in nuclear mobility of mammalian cis-regulatory elements. Science 359, 1050–1055 (2018).
Germier, T. et al. Real-time imaging of a single gene reveals transcription-initiated local confinement. Biophys. J. 113, 1383–1394 (2017).
Urlinger, S. et al. Exploring the sequence space for tetracycline-dependent transcriptional activators: novel mutations yield expanded range and sensitivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 7963–7968 (2000).
Vogel, M. J., Peric-Hupkes, D. & van Steensel, B. Detection of in vivo protein–DNA interactions using DamID in mammalian cells. Nat. Protoc. 2, 1467–1478 (2007).
Gu, H., Zou, Y.-R. & Rajewsky, K. Independent control of immunoglobulin switch recombination at individual switch regions evidenced through Cre-loxP-mediated gene targeting. Cell 73, 1155–1164 (1993).
Sanulli, S. et al. Jarid2 methylation via the PRC2 complex regulates H3K27me3 deposition during cell differentiation. Mol. Cell 57, 769–783 (2015).
Wang, Y. et al. Reversed-phase chromatography with multiple fraction concatenation strategy for proteome profiling of human MCF10A cells. Proteomics 11, 2019–2026 (2011).
Cox, J. & Mann, M. MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 1367–1372 (2008).
Cox, J. et al. Accurate proteome-wide label-free quantification by delayed normalization and maximal peptide ratio extraction, termed MaxLFQ. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 13, 2513–2526 (2014).
Tyanova, S. et al. The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of (prote)omics data. Nat. Methods 13, 731–740 (2016).
Wiśniewski, J. R., Hein, M. Y., Cox, J. & Mann, M. A “Proteomic Ruler” for protein copy number and concentration estimation without spike-in standards. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 13, 3497–3506 (2014).
MacLean, B. et al. Skyline: an open source document editor for creating and analyzing targeted proteomics experiments. Bioinformatics 26, 966–968 (2010).
Splinter, E., de Wit, E., van de Werken, H. J. G., Klous, P. & de Laat, W. Determining long-range chromatin interactions for selected genomic sites using 4C-seq technology: from fixation to computation. Methods 58, 221–230 (2012).
Gaidatzis, D., Lerch, A., Hahne, F. & Stadler, M. B. QuasR: quantification and annotation of short reads in R. Bioinformatics 31, 1130–1132 (2015).
Servant, N. et al. HiC-Pro: an optimized and flexible pipeline for Hi-C data processing. Genome Biol. 16, 259 (2015).
Imakaev, M. et al. Iterative correction of Hi-C data reveals hallmarks of chromosome organization. Nat. Methods 9, 999–1003 (2012).
Ernst, J. & Kellis, M. ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization. Nat. Methods 9, 215–216 (2012).
Sanyal, A., Lajoie, B., Jain, G. & Dekker, J. The long-range interaction landscape of gene promoters. Nature 489, 109–113 (2012).
Perez-Riverol, Y. et al. The PRIDE database and related tools and resources in 2019: improving support for quantification data. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D442–D450 (2019).
This work is dedicated to the memory of M. Dahan. Research in the Giorgetti laboratory is funded by the Novartis Foundation and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation (grant agreement no. 759366, ‘BioMeTre’). The Kind laboratory was funded by the ERC (grant agreement no. 678423, ‘EpiID’) and EMBO (no. LTF 1214-2016 to I.G.). R.S.G. acknowledges support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 705354 and an EMBO Long-Term fellowship (no. ALTF 1086-2015). We would like to thank P. Cron for cloning TetO-piggyBac plasmids; S. Aluri and S. Thiry for assistance with high-throughput sequencing; M. Stadler for help with bioinformatics analysis; S. Grzybek and H.-R. Hotz for server supports; and E. Heard and R. Galupa (Institut Curie, PSL Research University) for kindly providing PGK cells. We are grateful to D. Schuebeler and R. Galupa for critically reading the manuscript, and to G. Fudenberg for useful comments on scaling behavior. We acknowledge The ENCODE Project Consortium and, in particular, the Ren and Hardison laboratories for ChIP-Seq datasets in ESC.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Integrated supplementary information
a) Left: DamC enrichment is plotted as a function of the concentrations of rTetR-Dam and TetO viewpoints, imposing specific and non-specific dissociation constants to 1 nM and 80 nM respectively. Right: the rTetR-Dam concentration where the DamC enrichment is maximal is linearly correlated with the concentration of TetO viewpoint. b) DamC enrichment shows a maximum irrespective of the choice of the numerical parameters. This is exemplified by plots of DamC enrichment as a function of rTetR-Dam concentration when varying the TetO specific affinity and keeping the nonspecific affinity fixed (left panel) and vice versa (right panel).
a) rTetR-Dam-EGFP-ERT2 becomes increasingly localized to the nucleus upon increasing 4-OHT concentration in the culture medium, as shown by the increasingly nuclear accumulation of EGFP. Maximum intensity projections of 10 wide-field Z planes are shown. Bright spots indicate binding of rTetR-Dam-EGFP-ERT2 to the 256x TetO array on chromosome X (see Fig. 1c). b) Schematics of the strategy for measuring rTetR-Dam-EGFP-ERT2 nuclear concentrations as a function of 4-OHT concentration. After exposing the cells to different concentrations of 4-OHT, nuclei were extracted and prepared for mass spectrometry. The relative abundance of nuclear rTetR-EGFP-Dam-ERT2 was measured using parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) using two replicate samples from all 4-OHT concentrations. Absolute quantification was performed in triplicate uniquely in the 500 nM 4-OHT sample using proteomic-ruler based mass spectrometry measurements (Wiśniewski et al. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 13, 3497–3506, 2014). We then extrapolated absolute nuclear rTetR-Dam copy numbers at all concentrations of 4-OHT based on the absolute quantification at 500 nM 4-OHT and the relative PRM quantification. Finally, the nuclear concentration of Dam-fusion Protein was calculated based on the average nuclear volume determined based on DAPI staining. Contamination from cytoplasmic proteins was estimated by comparing protein copy numbers of nuclear and whole-cell extracts, and subtracted from nuclear copy numbers. c) Protein copy numbers determined in nuclear extracts at 500 nM 4-OHT using the proteomic ruler strategy (Wiśniewski et al. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 13, 3497–3506, 2014). Data from three biological replicates are plotted before correction for cytoplasmic contamination. d) Schematics of the DamC library preparation. Genomic DNA is extracted from cells expressing the Dam-fusion protein. To avoid nonspecific ligation events in step 2, DNA is treated with shrimp alkaline phosphatase prior to DpnI digestion. After digestion with DpnI, a non-templated adenine is added to the 3’ blunt end of double-stranded DNA followed by ligation of the UMI-Adapter. Next, double-stranded DNA is denatured before random annealing of the second single stranded Adapter. In step 4, a T4-DNA-Polymerase is used for removal of 3’ overhangs and synthesis in the 5´→ 3´ direction. Finally, libraries are amplified by PCR and prepared for next generation sequencing. UMI: Unique Molecular Identifier. e) The DamC sequencing library preparation protocol includes UMIs allowing to filter ~40% of duplicated reads, and increases by roughly 30% the coverage of methylated GATC sites genome-wide compared to classical DamID (Peric-Hupkes et al. Mol. Cell 38, 603–613, 2010). at the same sequencing depth. f) Median DamC enrichment at the same viewpoints used for Fig. 3d as a function of 4-OHT concentration. Significant amounts of DamC enrichment in our experimental system can be observed in a range of rTetR-Dam nuclear concentrations corresponding to 5–10 and 0.1-1 nM 4-OHT for the lines carrying 890 and 135 viewpoints, respectively.
Supplementary Fig. 3 Characterization of the TetO-piggyBac clonal cell line and saturation analysis.
a) DamC enrichment from single DpnI fragments within +/− 100 kb from individual TetO viewpoints is plotted for two biological replicates performed with 0.1-1 nM 4-OHT. The Spearman correlation coefficient between the two replicates is indicated. b) The percentage of TetO viewpoints inserted in close proximity (<1 kb) from an active promoter or enhancer, or from a CTCF site that is bound in ChIP-seq (Nora et al. Cell 169, 930-944.e22, 2017). c) 4C interaction profiles obtained using a TetO viewpoint within 2 kb from an endogenous CTCF site and the partner CTCF locus as a reverse viewpoint. d) DamC and 4C interaction profiles measured from a TetO viewpoint inserted at the 3’UTR of the Chic1 gene within the Tsix TAD in the X inactivation center. Dashed lines indicate the interactions of Chic1 with the Linx and Xite loci. e) Definition of a deviation score measuring local differences between DamC and 4C. The deviation score is defined as the average quadratic difference between the DamC and the 4C signal in a 20-restriction fragment interval, normalized by the mean of the signal in the same interval. Two intervals are shown on the right to illustrate the differences between deviation scores of ~1 and ~3. f) Left: the 10% most dissimilar 20-fragment intervals are enriched in active chromatin, based on the dominant ChromHMM state (Ernst & Kellis. Nat. Methods 9, 215–216, 2012) in the interval using four chromatin states (ChromHMM emissions) (Chi-Square Test: pvalue < 10−9). ‘Inert’ corresponds to chromatin that is not enriched in H3K9me3, H3K27m3, H3K36me3, H3K9ac, nor H3K27ac. See the Methods section for more details. Right: The distributions of deviation scores in 20-fragment intervals where the dominant ChromHMM state is either inert, repressive, polycomb-associated or active, showing that active chromatin tends to show higher local dissimilarity between 4C and DamC (p-values from Wilcoxon test, two-sided). Cf. panel f for an example of a deviation score of ~3, corresponding to the average dissimilarity at active chromatin regions. g) Left: correlation between DamC signal in the -Dox sample and DNase-seq in mESC from ENCODE datasets. Each point in the scatter plot represents the aggregated signal in 20 kb; all 20 kb intervals genome-wide are shown along with their Spearman correlation. Right: One representative megabase on Chr1 showing the high correlation between the two signals. DamC and DNase-seq data were normalized to have equal average signal over the genomic interval shown here. h) Left: Removing DNase hypersensitive GATCs (see Methods) does not lead to increased local similarity between DamC and 4C. Distributions of local deviation scores are calculated over all 130 valid profiles and deviation scores between two DamC biological replicates is shown for comparison (p-values from Wilcoxon test, one-sided).
DamC (red) and 4C (black) profiles from forty TetO viewpoints in the pure clone with 135 TetO insertions.
a) Insertion of TetO arrays does not perturb genome structure. Hi-C heatmaps of three different genomic locations harboring an array of 50xTetO sites and the corresponding wild-type locus are shown. Hi-C data are binned at 10 kb resolution. b) In windows of +/− 50 or +/− 200 kb surrounding the TetO integration sites, no significant changes can be detected in Hi-C at 5 and 10 kb resolution, respectively. Indeed, deviation scores between wild-type and TetO cells obtained at TetO insertion sites (green violin plot) are similar to those obtained at random wild-type genomic viewpoints (pink violin plot), and significantly smaller than those obtained by comparing virtual 4C profiles from pairs of different random genomic viewpoints (blue) (p-values are from Wilcoxon test, one-sided). c) Left: scheme of viewpoints used for the 4C experiment shown on the right. In cells harboring the TetO insertions, the ‘forward’ 4C viewpoint is within the TetO array as in main Fig. 3; in wild-type cells, the viewpoint is adjacent to the insertion genomic coordinate. The reciprocal viewpoint is the same in the two cases. Right: 4C profiles at the locus shown in panel c using the viewpoints shown on the left are indistinguishable.
a) Percentage of TetO-CTCF viewpoints occurring in close proximity (<1 kb) from an active promoter or enhancer, or a CTCF site that is bound in ChIP-seq (Nora et al. Cell 169, 930-944.e22, 2017). b) Distribution of peaks detected by peakC per viewpoint in TetO-CTCF (left) and TetO line (right) c) Examples of interaction profiles from TetO-CTCF viewpoints occurring in regions that are either devoid of (left) or densely bound by CTCF (right). d) Two further examples of ectopic structures formed as a consequence of the insertion of TetO-CTCF viewpoints. Hi-C data are binned at 10 kb resolution. e) Scheme of Cre-mediated excision of the ectopic CTCF cassette and genotyping. f) Genotyping PCR showing Cre-mediated excision of the CTCF cassette from the two integration sites shown in Fig. 6 in the same mESC clone (A4).
DamC (red) and 4C (black) profiles from forty TetO-CTCF viewpoints in the pure clone with 91 TetO insertions.
Supplementary Figs. 1–7, Supplementary Note 1
Supplementary Table 1
Supplementary Table 2
Supplementary Table 3
Supplementary Table 4
Supplementary Table 5
Supplementary Table 6
About this article
Cite this article
Redolfi, J., Zhan, Y., Valdes-Quezada, C. et al. DamC reveals principles of chromatin folding in vivo without crosslinking and ligation. Nat Struct Mol Biol 26, 471–480 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-019-0231-0
This article is cited by
Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters (2023)
Enhancer–promoter interactions can bypass CTCF-mediated boundaries and contribute to phenotypic robustness
Nature Genetics (2023)
Nature Reviews Genetics (2023)
Building regulatory landscapes reveals that an enhancer can recruit cohesin to create contact domains, engage CTCF sites and activate distant genes
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology (2022)