Back

Mitotic chromosomes harbor cell type and species-specific structural features within a universal looping architecture

Oomen, M. E.; Fox, A. N.; Gonzalez, I.; Molliex, A.; Papadopoulou, T.; Navarro, P.; Dekker, J.

2023-12-09 genomics
10.1101/2023.12.08.570796 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The architecture of mammalian mitotic chromosomes is considered to be universal across species and cell types. However, some studies suggest that features of mitotic chromosomes might be cell type or species specific. We previously reported that CTCF binding in human differentiated cell lines is lost in mitosis, whereas mouse embryonic stem cells (mESC) display prominent binding at a subset of CTCF sites in mitosis. Here, we perform parallel footprint ATAC-seq data analyses of mESCs and somatic mouse and human cells to further explore these differences. We then investigate roles of mitotically bound (bookmarked) CTCF in prometaphase chromosome organization by Hi-C. We do not find any remaining interphase structures such as TADs or CTCF loops at mitotically bookmarked CTCF sites in mESCs. This suggests that mitotic loop extruders condensin I and II are not blocked by bound CTCF, and thus that any remaining CTCF binding does not alter mitotic chromosome folding. Lastly, we compare mitotic Hi-C data generated in this study in mouse with publicly available data from human and chicken cell lines. We do not find any cell type specific differences; however, we do find a difference between species. The average genomic size of mitotic loops is much smaller in chicken (200-350 kb), compared to human (500-750 kb) and mouse (1-2 mb). Interestingly, we find that this difference in loop size is correlated with the average genomic length of the q-arm in these species, a finding we confirm by microscopy measurements of chromosome compaction. This suggests that the dimensions of mitotic chromosomes can be modulated through control of sizes of loops generated by condensins to facilitate species-appropriate shortening of chromosome arms.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Chromosome Research
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
2
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 6%
10.1%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 14%
6.8%
4
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.8%
5
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
6
Chromosoma
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
7
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
8
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
9
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.1%
10
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.4%
11
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 27%
2.1%
12
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.9%
13
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.9%
14
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
16
Open Biology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
17
Life Science Alliance
263 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
18
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.7%
19
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
20
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
21
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
22
Molecular Biology of the Cell
272 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
23
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.3%
24
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.1%
25
EMBO reports
136 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
26
Journal of Cell Science
353 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
27
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
28
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
29
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
30
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.7%