U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination

SRX24157748: GSM8188161: GlambdaL, st14, rep1; Drosophila melanogaster; OTHER
1 ILLUMINA (Illumina NovaSeq 6000) run: 460.4M spots, 59.8G bases, 17.7Gb downloads

External Id: GSM8188161_r1
Submitted by: Paul Schedl lab, Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton University
Study: Chromosome Structure I: Loop extrusion or boundary:boundary pairing?
show Abstracthide Abstract
Two different models have been proposed to explain how the endpoints of chromatin looped domains (“TADs”) in eukaryotic chromosomes are determined. In the first, a cohesin complex extrudes a loop until it encounters a boundary element roadblock, generating a stem-loop (and an unanchored loop). In this model, boundaries are functionally autonomous: they have an intrinsic ability to halt the movement of incoming cohesin complexes that is independent of the properties of neighboring boundaries. In the second, loops are generated by boundary:boundary pairing. In this model, boundaries are functionally non-autonomous, and their ability to form a loop depends upon how well they match with their neighbors. Moreover, unlike the loop-extrusion model, pairing interactions can generate both stem-loops and circle-loops. We have used a combination of MicroC to analyze how TADs are organized and experimental manipulations of the even skipped TAD boundary, homie, to test the predictions of the “loop-extrusion” and the “boundary-pairing” models. Our findings are incompatible with the loop-extrusion model and instead suggest that the endpoints of TADs in flies are determined by a mechanism in which boundary elements physically pair with their partners, either head-to-head, or head-to-tail, with varying degrees of specificity. Although our experiments do not address how partners find each other, the mechanism is unlikely involve loop extrusion. Overall design: microC for Drosophila st14 whole embryo samples, 2-3 independent replicates for each genotype
Sample: GlambdaL, st14, rep1
SAMN40751508 • SRS20938749 • All experiments • All runs
Library:
Name: GSM8188161
Instrument: Illumina NovaSeq 6000
Strategy: OTHER
Source: GENOMIC
Selection: other
Layout: PAIRED
Construction protocol: Embryos were dechorionated for 2 mins in 3% sodium hypochlorite, rinsed with deionized water, and transferred to glass vials containing 5 mL PBST (0.1% Triton-X100 in PBS), 7.5 mL n-heptane, and 1.5mL fresh 16% formaldehyde. Crosslinking was carried out at room temperature for exactly 15 mins on an orbital shaker at 250rpm, followed by addition of 3.7 mL 2M Tris-HCl pH7.5 and shaking for 5 mins to quench the reaction. Embryos were washed twice with 15 mL PBST and subjected to secondary crosslinking. Secondary crosslinking was done in 10mL of freshly prepared 3mM final DSG and ESG in PBST for 45 mins at room temperature with passive mixing. The reaction was quenched by addition of 3.7mL 2M Tris-HCl pH7.5 for 5 mins, washed twice with PBST, snap-frozen, and stored at -80℃ until library construction. Micro-C libraries were prepared as previously described (Batut et al., 2022) with the following modifications: 50uL of 12-16hr embryos were used for each biological replicate. 60U of MNase was used for each reaction to digest chromatin to a mononucleosome:dinucleosome ratio of 4. Libraries were barcoded, pooled and subjected to paired-end sequencing on an Illumina Novaseq S1 100 nt Flowcell (read length 50 bases per mate, 6-base index read)
Runs: 1 run, 460.4M spots, 59.8G bases, 17.7Gb
Run# of Spots# of BasesSizePublished
SRR28558249460,384,30459.8G17.7Gb2024-04-04

ID:
32468496

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...