Literature DB >> 24519450

Reproducibility of 3D chromatin configuration reconstructions.

Mark R Segal1, Hao Xiong2, Daniel Capurso2, Mariel Vazquez2, Javier Arsuaga2.   

Abstract

It is widely recognized that the three-dimensional (3D) architecture of eukaryotic chromatin plays an important role in processes such as gene regulation and cancer-driving gene fusions. Observing or inferring this 3D structure at even modest resolutions had been problematic, since genomes are highly condensed and traditional assays are coarse. However, recently devised high-throughput molecular techniques have changed this situation. Notably, the development of a suite of chromatin conformation capture (CCC) assays has enabled elicitation of contacts-spatially close chromosomal loci-which have provided insights into chromatin architecture. Most analysis of CCC data has focused on the contact level, with less effort directed toward obtaining 3D reconstructions and evaluating the accuracy and reproducibility thereof. While questions of accuracy must be addressed experimentally, questions of reproducibility can be addressed statistically-the purpose of this paper. We use a constrained optimization technique to reconstruct chromatin configurations for a number of closely related yeast datasets and assess reproducibility using four metrics that measure the distance between 3D configurations. The first of these, Procrustes fitting, measures configuration closeness after applying reflection, rotation, translation, and scaling-based alignment of the structures. The others base comparisons on the within-configuration inter-point distance matrix. Inferential results for these metrics rely on suitable permutation approaches. Results indicate that distance matrix-based approaches are preferable to Procrustes analysis, not because of the metrics per se but rather on account of the ability to customize permutation schemes to handle within-chromosome contiguity. It has recently been emphasized that the use of constrained optimization approaches to 3D architecture reconstruction are prone to being trapped in local minima. Our methods of reproducibility assessment provide a means for comparing 3D reconstruction solutions so that we can discern between local and global optima by contrasting solutions under perturbed inputs.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chromatin conformation; Distance matrix; Genome architecture; Procrustes analysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24519450      PMCID: PMC4059464          DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxu003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN: 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.899


  22 in total

1.  A random-walk/giant-loop model for interphase chromosomes.

Authors:  R K Sachs; G van den Engh; B Trask; H Yokota; J E Hearst
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1995-03-28       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach.

Authors:  N Mantel
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1967-02       Impact factor: 12.701

3.  Genome architectures revealed by tethered chromosome conformation capture and population-based modeling.

Authors:  Reza Kalhor; Harianto Tjong; Nimanthi Jayathilaka; Frank Alber; Lin Chen
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2011-12-25       Impact factor: 54.908

4.  A three-dimensional model of the yeast genome.

Authors:  Zhijun Duan; Mirela Andronescu; Kevin Schutz; Sean McIlwain; Yoo Jung Kim; Choli Lee; Jay Shendure; Stanley Fields; C Anthony Blau; William S Noble
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-05-02       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 5.  The impact of translocations and gene fusions on cancer causation.

Authors:  Felix Mitelman; Bertil Johansson; Fredrik Mertens
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2007-03-15       Impact factor: 60.716

6.  Classification of human genomic regions based on experimentally determined binding sites of more than 100 transcription-related factors.

Authors:  Kevin Y Yip; Chao Cheng; Nitin Bhardwaj; James B Brown; Jing Leng; Anshul Kundaje; Joel Rozowsky; Ewan Birney; Peter Bickel; Michael Snyder; Mark Gerstein
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 13.583

7.  The performance of the Congruence Among Distance Matrices (CADM) test in phylogenetic analysis.

Authors:  Véronique Campbell; Pierre Legendre; François-Joseph Lapointe
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2011-03-09       Impact factor: 3.260

Review 8.  Bridging the resolution gap in structural modeling of 3D genome organization.

Authors:  Marc A Marti-Renom; Leonid A Mirny
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2011-07-14       Impact factor: 4.475

9.  On the assessment of statistical significance of three-dimensional colocalization of sets of genomic elements.

Authors:  Daniela M Witten; William Stafford Noble
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  Single-cell Hi-C reveals cell-to-cell variability in chromosome structure.

Authors:  Takashi Nagano; Yaniv Lubling; Tim J Stevens; Stefan Schoenfelder; Eitan Yaffe; Wendy Dean; Ernest D Laue; Amos Tanay; Peter Fraser
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  17 in total

1.  Chromosome position determines the success of double-strand break repair.

Authors:  Cheng-Sheng Lee; Ruoxi W Wang; Hsiao-Han Chang; Daniel Capurso; Mark R Segal; James E Haber
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Inferential modeling of 3D chromatin structure.

Authors:  Siyu Wang; Jinbo Xu; Jianyang Zeng
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 16.971

3.  Can 3D diploid genome reconstruction from unphased Hi-C data be salvaged?

Authors:  Mark R Segal
Journal:  NAR Genom Bioinform       Date:  2022-05-12

Review 4.  Modeling chromosomes: Beyond pretty pictures.

Authors:  Maxim V Imakaev; Geoffrey Fudenberg; Leonid A Mirny
Journal:  FEBS Lett       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 4.124

5.  Assessing the limits of restraint-based 3D modeling of genomes and genomic domains.

Authors:  Marie Trussart; François Serra; Davide Baù; Ivan Junier; Luís Serrano; Marc A Marti-Renom
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 16.971

6.  Improving 3D Genome Reconstructions Using Orthologous and Functional Constraints.

Authors:  Alon Diament; Tamir Tuller
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2015-05-22       Impact factor: 4.475

7.  Distance-based assessment of the localization of functional annotations in 3D genome reconstructions.

Authors:  Daniel Capurso; Mark R Segal
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 3.969

8.  3CDB: a manually curated database of chromosome conformation capture data.

Authors:  Xiaoxiao Yun; Lili Xia; Bixia Tang; Hui Zhang; Feifei Li; Zhihua Zhang
Journal:  Database (Oxford)       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 3.451

9.  Current theoretical models fail to predict the topological complexity of the human genome.

Authors:  Javier Arsuaga; Reyka G Jayasinghe; Robert G Scharein; Mark R Segal; Robert H Stolz; Mariel Vazquez
Journal:  Front Mol Biosci       Date:  2015-08-21

10.  Reconstruction of 3D genome architecture via a two-stage algorithm.

Authors:  Mark R Segal; Henrik L Bengtsson
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.