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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |