TY - JOUR
T1 - How chromosome topologies get their shape
T2 - views from proximity ligation and microscopy methods
AU - Huang, Yike
AU - Neijts, Roel
AU - de Laat, Wouter
N1 - Funding Information:
This work is part of the Oncode Institute and was supported by KWF grant 13117/2020‐1.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Authors. FEBS Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/11
Y1 - 2020/11
N2 - The 3D organization of our genome is an important determinant for the transcriptional output of a gene in (patho)physiological contexts. The spatial organization of linear chromosomes within nucleus is dominantly inferred using two distinct approaches, chromosome conformation capture (3C) and DNA fluorescent in situ hybridization (DNA-FISH). While 3C and its derivatives score genomic interaction frequencies based on proximity ligation events, DNA-FISH methods measure physical distances between genomic loci. Despite these approaches probe different characteristics of chromosomal topologies, they provide a coherent picture of how chromosomes are organized in higher-order structures encompassing chromosome territories, compartments, and topologically associating domains. Yet, at the finer topological level of promoter-enhancer communication, the imaging-centered and the 3C methods give more divergent and sometimes seemingly paradoxical results. Here, we compare and contrast observations made applying visual DNA-FISH and molecular 3C approaches. We emphasize that the 3C approach, due to its inherently competitive ligation step, measures only 'relative' proximities. A 3C interaction enriched between loci, therefore does not necessarily translates into a decrease in absolute spatial distance. Hence, we advocate caution when modeling chromosome conformations.
AB - The 3D organization of our genome is an important determinant for the transcriptional output of a gene in (patho)physiological contexts. The spatial organization of linear chromosomes within nucleus is dominantly inferred using two distinct approaches, chromosome conformation capture (3C) and DNA fluorescent in situ hybridization (DNA-FISH). While 3C and its derivatives score genomic interaction frequencies based on proximity ligation events, DNA-FISH methods measure physical distances between genomic loci. Despite these approaches probe different characteristics of chromosomal topologies, they provide a coherent picture of how chromosomes are organized in higher-order structures encompassing chromosome territories, compartments, and topologically associating domains. Yet, at the finer topological level of promoter-enhancer communication, the imaging-centered and the 3C methods give more divergent and sometimes seemingly paradoxical results. Here, we compare and contrast observations made applying visual DNA-FISH and molecular 3C approaches. We emphasize that the 3C approach, due to its inherently competitive ligation step, measures only 'relative' proximities. A 3C interaction enriched between loci, therefore does not necessarily translates into a decrease in absolute spatial distance. Hence, we advocate caution when modeling chromosome conformations.
KW - DNA fluorescent in situ hybridization
KW - chromosome conformation capture
KW - gene regulation
KW - genome organization
KW - live-cell imaging
KW - loop extrusion
KW - promoter–enhancer interaction
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85095711517&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/1873-3468.13961
DO - 10.1002/1873-3468.13961
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33073863
SN - 0014-5793
VL - 594
SP - 3439
EP - 3449
JO - FEBS letters
JF - FEBS letters
IS - 21
ER -