Article
reSeArcH
64 | NATURE | VOL 544 | 6 APRIL 2017
1. 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
(20 Pt A), 2931–2943 (2015).
2. Bickmore, W. A. & van Steensel, B. Genome architecture: domain organization
of interphase chromosomes. Cell 152, 1270–1284 (2013).
3. Lieberman-Aiden, E. et al. Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions
reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science 326, 289–293
(2009).
4. Nora, E. P. et al. Spatial partitioning of the regulatory landscape of the
X-inactivation centre. Nature 485, 381–385 (2012).
5. Dixon, J. R. et al. Topological domains in mammalian genomes identied by
analysis of chromatin interactions. Nature 485, 376–380 (2012).
6. Sexton, T. et al. Three-dimensional folding and functional organization
principles of the Drosophila genome. Cell 148, 458–472 (2012).
7. 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).
8. Zuin, J. et al. Cohesin and CTCF dierentially aect chromatin architecture and
gene expression in human cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 996–1001
(2014).
9. Phillips-Cremins, J. E. et al. Architectural protein subclasses shape 3D
organization of genomes during lineage commitment. Cell 153, 1281–1295
(2013).
10. 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 (2011).
11. Tjong, H. et al. Population-based 3D genome structure analysis reveals driving
forces in spatial genome organization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113,
E1663–E1672 (2016).
12. Naumova, N. et al. Organization of the mitotic chromosome. Science 342,
948–953 (2013).
13. Foti, R. et al. Nuclear architecture organized by Rif1 underpins the replication-
timing program. Mol. Cell 61, 260–273 (2016).
14. Wang, S. et al. Spatial organization of chromatin domains and compartments
in single chromosomes. Science 353, 598–602 (2016).
15. Julienne, H., Zour, A., Audit, B. & Arneodo, A. Human genome replication
proceeds through four chromatin states. PLOS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003233
(2013).
16. Peric-Hupkes, D. et al. Molecular maps of the reorganization of genome-
nuclear lamina interactions during dierentiation. Mol. Cell 38, 603–613
(2010).
17. Meuleman, W. et al. Constitutive nuclear lamina-genome interactions are
highly conserved and associated with A/T-rich sequence. Genome Res. 23,
270–280 (2013).
18. van Koningsbruggen, S. et al. High-resolution whole-genome sequencing
reveals that specic chromatin domains from most human chromosomes
associate with nucleoli. Mol. Biol. Cell 21, 3735–3748 (2010).
19. Kind, J. et al. Single-cell dynamics of genome-nuclear lamina interactions.
Cell 153, 178–192 (2013).
20. Dunn, S. J., Martello, G., Yordanov, B., Emmott, S. & Smith, A. G. Dening an
essential transcription factor program for naïve pluripotency. Science 344,
1156–1160 (2014).
21. Therizols, P. et al. Chromatin decondensation is sucient to alter
nuclear organization in embryonic stem cells. Science 346, 1238–1242
(2014).
22. Krüger, A. V. et al. Comprehensive single cell-resolution analysis of the role of
chromatin regulators in early C. elegans embryogenesis. Dev. Biol. 398,
153–162 (2015).
23. Sofueva, S. et al. Cohesin-mediated interactions organize chromosomal
domain architecture. EMBO J. 32, 3119–3129 (2013).
24. Giorgetti, L. et al. Predictive polymer modeling reveals coupled uctuations
in chromosome conformation and transcription. Cell 157, 950–963
(2014).
25. Naughton, C. et al. Transcription forms and remodels supercoiling domains
unfolding large-scale chromatin structures. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 387–395
(2013).
26. Kouzine, F. et al. Transcription-dependent dynamic supercoiling is a
short-range genomic force. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 20, 396–403 (2013).
27. Guo, Y. et al. CRISPR inversion of CTCF sites alters genome topology and
enhancer/promoter function. Cell 162, 900–910 (2015).
28. 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).
29. Fudenberg, G. et al. Formation of chromosomal domains by loop extrusion.
Cell Reports 15, 2038–2049 (2016).
30. Lengronne, A. et al. Cohesin relocation from sites of chromosomal loading to
places of convergent transcription. Nature 430, 573–578 (2004).
31. Eagen, K. P., Hartl, T. A. & Kornberg, R. D. Stable chromosome condensation
revealed by chromosome conformation capture. Cell 163, 934–946 (2015).
32. Zhimulev, I. F. et al. Genetic organization of interphase chromosome bands and
interbands in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS One 9, e101631 (2014).
33. Minajigi, A. et al. Chromosomes. A comprehensive Xist interactome reveals
cohesin repulsion and an RNA-directed chromosome conformation. Science
349, aab2276 (2015).
34. Giorgetti, L. et al. Structural organization of the inactive X chromosome in the
mouse. Nature 535, 575–579 (2016).
35. de Wit, E. et al. The pluripotent genome in three dimensions is shaped around
pluripotency factors. Nature 501, 227–231 (2013).
36. Wei, Z. et al. Klf4 organizes long-range chromosomal interactions with the Oct4
locus in reprogramming and pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 13, 36–47 (2013).
37. Denholtz, M. et al. Long-range chromatin contacts in embryonic stem cells
reveal a role for pluripotency factors and polycomb proteins in genome
organization. Cell Stem Cell 13, 602–616 (2013).
38. Reynolds, N. et al. NuRD suppresses pluripotency gene expression to promote
transcriptional heterogeneity and lineage commitment. Cell Stem Cell 10,
583–594 (2012).
39. Zhang, W. et al. The nucleosome remodeling and deacetylase complex NuRD is
built from preformed catalytically active sub-modules. J. Mol. Biol. 428,
2931–2942 (2016).
40. Zhang, Y. et al. Spatial organization of the mouse genome and its role in
recurrent chromosomal translocations. Cell 148, 908–921 (2012).
Supplementary Information is available in the online version of the paper.
Acknowledgements We thank A. Riddell for cell sorting, P. Humphreys for
confocal microscopy, A. Peter Gunnarson for the density mapping software,
the CRUK Cambridge Institute for DNA sequencing, T. Nagano and
P. Fraser for processing the preliminary haploid mouse ES cells, and W. Dean,
S. Schoenfelder and S. Wingett for advice. We thank the Wellcome Trust
(082010/Z/07/Z), the EC FP7 4DCellFate project (277899) and the MRC
(MR/M010082/1) for financial support.
Author Contributions D.L., S.B. and Y.C. developed the protocol and carried
out imaging/Hi-C processing. T.J.S. developed the software with assistance
from L.P.A., W.B. and K.J.W. A.O’S.-K., J.C., M.R. and B.H. carried out the CHD4/
MBD3 depletion experiments, associated RNA-seq and ChIP–seq, and created
the mEos3.2-Halo tagged ES cell lines. M.L. and A.W. provided the initial
samples of haploid mouse ES cells. S.F.L., M.G.S.P. and D.K. designed and
built the microscope. L.M., M.S. and L.D.C. carried out ChIP–seq and RNA-seq
experiments, while A.J.F., E.B. and B.L. carried out bioinformatics analysis. T.J.S.
and E.D.L. designed experiments, analysed the results and wrote the manuscript
with contributions from all the other authors.
Author Information Reprints and permissions information is available at
www.nature.com/reprints. The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Readers are welcome to comment on the online version of the paper.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to
E.D.L. (e.d.laue@bioc.cam.ac.uk).
Reviewer Information Nature thanks W. Huber and the other anonymous
reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.