ArticlePloS one2025
Quantifying conformational heterogeneity of 3D genome organization in fruit fly.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reversing aging-like 3D genome disorganization in abioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The three-dimensional (3D) organization of interphase chromatin in eukaryotes is complex; details of the corresponding genome structures vary stochastically from cell to cell. Here, we propose a metric to quantify the cell-to-cell heterogeneity of the 3D chromatin conformations in ensembles of single cells: Conformational Heterogeneity (C.H.) is defined as the standard deviation of the ensemble distribution of the per cell average Euclidean inter-loci distances [Formula: see text], for a given genomic separation s between the loci. We have used the metric to examine and quantify in detail the cell-to-cell heterogeneity of conformations of the interphase X chromosome in fruit fly generated via three distinctly different modeling approaches, which take experimental Hi-C data as input. Two of the approaches use bulk Hi-C and lamina-DamID data, while the third relies on single-cell Hi-C maps. An algorithm is proposed to facilitate comparison of C.H. of models constructed at different resolutions, and to examine the behavior of conformational heterogeneity with increasing model resolution. Higher resolution models show a greater C.H., in general. The impact of the model resolution is strongest near the genomic distance s corresponding to the resolution limit of the model, and diminishes for larger genomic distances: extrapolating the resolution from approximately 14 kb to 2 kb has little effect on the C.H. beyond [Formula: see text]100 kb. All chromatin models examined in this work show a very similar trend of monotonically increasing structural heterogeneity with s, up to the genomic TAD size; beyond that, significant differences arise, with the model based on single-cell Hi-C showing nearly opposite trend compared to the two models that use bulk Hi-C data. We attribute these major differences to relatively subtle differences in the modeling approaches, which we discuss. Based on the analysis, we propose to explore the possibility of inclusion of bulk Hi-C data into training of chromatin models that are based on necessarily limited single-cell Hi-C data. Within our computational approach, depletion of nuclear lamins leads to increased structural heterogeneity at nearly all genomic separations, with the potential implication that cell functions that depend on chromatin structure might be more variable within lamins depleted nuclei compared to the wild type.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.