↓ Skip to main content

Depletion of the Chromatin Looping Proteins CTCF and Cohesin Causes Chromatin Compaction: Insight into Chromatin Folding by Polymer Modelling

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Depletion of the Chromatin Looping Proteins CTCF and Cohesin Causes Chromatin Compaction: Insight into Chromatin Folding by Polymer Modelling
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, October 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003877
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariliis Tark-Dame, Hansjoerg Jerabek, Erik M M Manders, Ingrid M van der Wateren, Dieter W Heermann, Roel van Driel

Abstract

Folding of the chromosomal fibre in interphase nuclei is an important element in the regulation of gene expression. For instance, physical contacts between promoters and enhancers are a key element in cell-type-specific transcription. We know remarkably little about the principles that control chromosome folding. Here we explore the view that intrachromosomal interactions, forming a complex pattern of loops, are a key element in chromosome folding. CTCF and cohesin are two abundant looping proteins of interphase chromosomes of higher eukaryotes. To investigate the role of looping in large-scale (supra Mb) folding of human chromosomes, we knocked down the gene that codes for CTCF and the one coding for Rad21, an essential subunit of cohesin. We measured the effect on chromosome folding using systematic 3D fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Results show that chromatin becomes more compact after reducing the concentration of these two looping proteins. The molecular basis for this counter-intuitive behaviour is explored by polymer modelling usingy the Dynamic Loop model (Bohn M, Heermann DW (2010) Diffusion-driven looping provides a consistent framework for chromatin organization. PLoS ONE 5: e12218.). We show that compaction can be explained by selectively decreasing the number of short-range loops, leaving long-range looping unchanged. In support of this model prediction it has recently been shown by others that CTCF and cohesin indeed are responsible primarily for short-range looping. Our results suggest that the local and the overall changes in of chromosome structure are controlled by a delicate balance between short-range and long-range loops, allowing easy switching between, for instance, open and more compact chromatin states.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 132 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 33%
Researcher 28 20%
Student > Master 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Professor 6 4%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 10 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 25%
Physics and Astronomy 11 8%
Computer Science 6 4%
Mathematics 4 3%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 11 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,184,741
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,529
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,015
of 267,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#92
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.