Cargando…

Comparison of the Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE methods using polymer models of chromatin

Hi-C, split-pool recognition of interactions by tag extension (SPRITE) and genome architecture mapping (GAM) are powerful technologies utilized to probe chromatin interactions genome wide, but how faithfully they capture three-dimensional (3D) contacts and how they perform relative to each other is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fiorillo, Luca, Musella, Francesco, Conte, Mattia, Kempfer, Rieke, Chiariello, Andrea M., Bianco, Simona, Kukalev, Alexander, Irastorza-Azcarate, Ibai, Esposito, Andrea, Abraham, Alex, Prisco, Antonella, Pombo, Ana, Nicodemi, Mario
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group US 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8416658/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33963348
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41592-021-01135-1
_version_ 1783748235169366016
author Fiorillo, Luca
Musella, Francesco
Conte, Mattia
Kempfer, Rieke
Chiariello, Andrea M.
Bianco, Simona
Kukalev, Alexander
Irastorza-Azcarate, Ibai
Esposito, Andrea
Abraham, Alex
Prisco, Antonella
Pombo, Ana
Nicodemi, Mario
author_facet Fiorillo, Luca
Musella, Francesco
Conte, Mattia
Kempfer, Rieke
Chiariello, Andrea M.
Bianco, Simona
Kukalev, Alexander
Irastorza-Azcarate, Ibai
Esposito, Andrea
Abraham, Alex
Prisco, Antonella
Pombo, Ana
Nicodemi, Mario
author_sort Fiorillo, Luca
collection PubMed
description Hi-C, split-pool recognition of interactions by tag extension (SPRITE) and genome architecture mapping (GAM) are powerful technologies utilized to probe chromatin interactions genome wide, but how faithfully they capture three-dimensional (3D) contacts and how they perform relative to each other is unclear, as no benchmark exists. Here, we compare these methods in silico in a simplified, yet controlled, framework against known 3D structures of polymer models of murine and human loci, which can recapitulate Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE experiments and multiplexed fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) single-molecule conformations. We find that in silico Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE bulk data are faithful to the reference 3D structures whereas single-cell data reflect strong variability among single molecules. The minimal number of cells required in replicate experiments to return statistically similar contacts is different across the technologies, being lowest in SPRITE and highest in GAM under the same conditions. Noise-to-signal levels follow an inverse power law with detection efficiency and grow with genomic distance differently among the three methods, being lowest in GAM for genomic separations >1 Mb.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8416658
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Nature Publishing Group US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84166582021-09-22 Comparison of the Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE methods using polymer models of chromatin Fiorillo, Luca Musella, Francesco Conte, Mattia Kempfer, Rieke Chiariello, Andrea M. Bianco, Simona Kukalev, Alexander Irastorza-Azcarate, Ibai Esposito, Andrea Abraham, Alex Prisco, Antonella Pombo, Ana Nicodemi, Mario Nat Methods Analysis Hi-C, split-pool recognition of interactions by tag extension (SPRITE) and genome architecture mapping (GAM) are powerful technologies utilized to probe chromatin interactions genome wide, but how faithfully they capture three-dimensional (3D) contacts and how they perform relative to each other is unclear, as no benchmark exists. Here, we compare these methods in silico in a simplified, yet controlled, framework against known 3D structures of polymer models of murine and human loci, which can recapitulate Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE experiments and multiplexed fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) single-molecule conformations. We find that in silico Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE bulk data are faithful to the reference 3D structures whereas single-cell data reflect strong variability among single molecules. The minimal number of cells required in replicate experiments to return statistically similar contacts is different across the technologies, being lowest in SPRITE and highest in GAM under the same conditions. Noise-to-signal levels follow an inverse power law with detection efficiency and grow with genomic distance differently among the three methods, being lowest in GAM for genomic separations >1 Mb. Nature Publishing Group US 2021-05-07 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8416658/ /pubmed/33963348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41592-021-01135-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021, corrected publication 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Analysis
Fiorillo, Luca
Musella, Francesco
Conte, Mattia
Kempfer, Rieke
Chiariello, Andrea M.
Bianco, Simona
Kukalev, Alexander
Irastorza-Azcarate, Ibai
Esposito, Andrea
Abraham, Alex
Prisco, Antonella
Pombo, Ana
Nicodemi, Mario
Comparison of the Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE methods using polymer models of chromatin
title Comparison of the Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE methods using polymer models of chromatin
title_full Comparison of the Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE methods using polymer models of chromatin
title_fullStr Comparison of the Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE methods using polymer models of chromatin
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE methods using polymer models of chromatin
title_short Comparison of the Hi-C, GAM and SPRITE methods using polymer models of chromatin
title_sort comparison of the hi-c, gam and sprite methods using polymer models of chromatin
topic Analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8416658/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33963348
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41592-021-01135-1
work_keys_str_mv AT fiorilloluca comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT musellafrancesco comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT contemattia comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT kempferrieke comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT chiarielloandream comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT biancosimona comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT kukalevalexander comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT irastorzaazcarateibai comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT espositoandrea comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT abrahamalex comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT priscoantonella comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT pomboana comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin
AT nicodemimario comparisonofthehicgamandspritemethodsusingpolymermodelsofchromatin