Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32514111›Full record

ReviewNature methods2020

Mechanistic modeling of chromatin folding to understand function.

Chris A Brackey, Davide Marenduzzo, Nick Gilbert

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Bridging spatial and temporal scales of developmental gene regulation.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Recipes and ingredients for deep learning models of 3D genome folding.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Understanding and Simulating the Dynamics of a Polymer-Like Chromatin.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Review
  15. 4D Genome Analysis Using PHi-C2.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Chris A BrackeySUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Davide MarenduzzoSUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. Davide.Marenduzzo@ed.ac.uk.
Nick GilbertMRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics & Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. Nick.Gilbert@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0505-6081

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00007/13Medical Research Council MC_UU_12018/24Medical Research Council MR/J00913X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Experimental approaches have been applied to address questions in understanding three-dimensional chromatin organization and function. As datasets increase in size and complexity, it becomes a challenge to reach a mechanistic interpretation of experimental results. Polymer simulations and mechanistic modeling have been applied to explain experimental observations and their links to different aspects of genome function. Here we provide a guide for biologists, explaining different simulation approaches and the contexts in which they have been used.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, ChemicalProtein FoldingAnimalsChromatinChromatin

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.