Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Topological weight and structural diversity of polydisperse chromatin loop networks

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The topological weight of any Gaussian chromatin loop network is exactly computable by resistor-network rules, and labelled variants are counted by the BEST theorem.

desk verdict A correct and useful generalization of topological weights to polydisperse loop networks, with a solid combinatorial counting formula, but the biological claim leans on an under-supported scatter plot and the arXiv text is badly contaminated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00520 v1 pith:OZ3N5ZW6 submitted 2025-07-01 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.soft

Andrea Bonato , Enrico Carlon , Sergey Kitaev , Davide Marenduzzo , Enzo Orlandini This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phcond-mat.soft
keywords chromatinloopnetworkstopologicalweightpolydispersepolymerresistor-networkanalogyBESTtheoremstructuraldiversityShannonentropytranscriptionunits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks how likely a given chromatin loop network is when the anchoring transcription units are unevenly spaced along the fibre. It claims that, for Gaussian polymer chains, the topological weight (the equilibrium partition function) of any labelled loop network can be computed exactly by treating each polymer segment as a resistor and combining them with series and parallel rules. It further claims that the number of labelled networks corresponding to an unlabelled topology follows from the BEST theorem of directed-graph theory, with closed forms for chain-like configurations. Applied to a model gene with eight transcription units, the framework predicts that rosette-like networks dominate and that the Shannon entropy of folding, called structural diversity, is largest when transcription units are evenly spaced. The authors connect this last prediction to transcriptional noise, since a gene's 3D folding variability is thought to influence expression variability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identities are the one-node reduction formula $\int dx\, e^{-3[(x_i-x)^2/l_i + (x-x_j)^2/l_j]/2\sigma} \propto L_{ij}^{3/2} e^{-3(x_i-x_j)^2/[2(l_i+l_j)\sigma]}$ with $L_{ij}=l_i l_j/(l_i+l_j)$, which is exactly the parallel-resistor rule, and the BEST theorem, a combinatorial theorem that counts Eulerian cycles of a directed graph as the number of rooted spanning trees times $\prod_x(\mathrm{outdegree}(x)-1)!$. The first identity carries the topological-weight calculation: building the matrix $B(G)$ from inverse segment lengths and taking its reduced determinant gives $Z_G$. The second carries the combinatorial-multiplicity calculation: after gluing the entry and exit clusters, the number of distinct traversals equals the number of labelled networks for that unlabelled topology.

What would settle it

Run a Monte Carlo simulation of a self-avoiding, semiflexible polymer with the same eight transcription-unit positions as in Section V and measure the relative frequencies of the labelled two-cluster topologies; if the ranking differs from the Gaussian resistor predictions, for instance if nonlocal watermelons become competitive or structural diversity no longer decreases with transcription-unit-spacing variance, the central claim as stated is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the partition function $Z_G$ of a labelled Gaussian loop network factorises through a matrix $B(G)$ whose entries are inverse segment lengths, and that eliminating nodes one by one reproduces the rules of electrical circuits: a node connecting two segments behaves like two resistors in parallel, so the weight depends on harmonic-mean effective lengths. In the two-cluster case a rosette always beats the corresponding watermelon because the effective length of seven parallel ties is smaller than the length of the single tie. For unlabelled networks, gluing the entry and exit clusters turns the topology into an Eulerian digraph, and the BEST theorem gives the number of label-preserving traversals; the paper derives explicit multiplicity formulas for two- and three-cluster chain-like configurations and for triangular three-cluster cases. Finally, applying the weights to an eight-transcription-unit gene topos, the paper shows that the five most probable labelled topologies already carry over half the total probability, and that the Shannon entropy of the ensemble decreases as the variance of transcription-unit spacings increases.

Load-bearing premise

All quantitative weights and structural-diversity numbers assume the chromatin fibre behaves as an ideal Gaussian chain with no excluded-volume repulsion between segments and no bending stiffness, and if real chromatin's self-avoidance changes which topologies are favoured, the predicted ordering and entropy values could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rosette-like topologies, whose loops are local, have larger topological weight than watermelon-like topologies with the same number of transcription units, for any choice of segment lengths.
  • In a Poisson-spaced eight-transcription-unit example, the top five labelled topologies account for more than half of the total topological weight, and the single-tie rosette alone exceeds 40% probability.
  • Structural diversity, defined as Shannon entropy over labelled topologies, is maximal for uniformly spaced transcription units and decreases as the spread of transcription-unit distances grows.
  • For chain-like unlabelled configurations, the combinatorial multiplicity has the closed form of Eq. (26), and explicit formulas exist for two- and three-cluster networks.
  • The same series-and-parallel resistor rules apply to expanded networks held by harmonic springs, with spring stiffnesses entering as additional resistances.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Gaussian resistor mapping is exact, then any two loop networks with the same effective resistance between corresponding clusters have equal topological weights, which suggests a design principle for synthetic polymer or chromatin constructs that does not require enumerating all conformations.
  • The predicted entropy-spacing relation could be tested without polymer simulations: single-cell transcription data for genes with clustered versus evenly spaced regulatory elements should show higher expression variability in the evenly spaced case if folding diversity drives transcriptional noise.
  • The BEST-theorem counting route is not limited to chain-like topologies; the triangular-configuration treatment suggests it could be automated to enumerate multiplicities for arbitrary unlabelled loop networks by summing over all valid edge orientations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theoretical framework for computing topological weights (partition functions) of polydisperse Gaussian chromatin loop networks, in which the distances between transcription units are arbitrary. The main technical results are: (i) an exact Gaussian-integral reduction showing that labelled-network weights can be computed via determinants of a matrix B'(G), with a partial analogy to series/parallel resistor networks; (ii) a BEST-theorem-based combinatorial enumeration of labelled networks corresponding to an unlabelled topology, with closed-form multiplicity formulas for chain-like and three-cluster configurations, notably Eq. (26); and (iii) an application to the Shannon entropy, called structural diversity, of the ensemble of two-cluster labelled networks for n=8 and n=10 TUs, leading to the claim that structural diversity decreases with the standard deviation of TU spacings and may provide a pathway to control transcriptional noise.

Significance. The theoretical core is strong and largely self-contained: the Gaussian integrals are explicit, the determinant formula (18) is general, and the BEST-theorem counting is a genuine advance over case-by-case enumeration. Eq. (26) is a valuable closed-form result and passes a strong internal consistency check, as the multiplicities sum to N(8,2)=119. The paper contains no fitted parameters, and the resistor-network analogy, where applicable, is elegant and computationally useful. If the structural-diversity trend is robust, the paper gives a concrete, falsifiable link between 1D gene organization and transcriptional noise. However, the central biological conclusion currently rests on a statistically under-supported scatter plot, and some advertised claims about the scope of the resistor analogy and the labelled/unlabelled comparison are not backed by the presented analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [V.A, Fig. 14] The claim that structural diversity S decreases with the standard deviation of TU spacings is the basis for the abstract's statement that 1D patterning can control transcriptional noise, yet it is supported only by a scatter plot with no reported number of realizations, no error bars, and no significance test. Since the exact weights are available from Eq. (18) and the entropy from Eq. (39), this trend is directly checkable. The authors should provide a quantitative analysis, for example many Poisson draws for each mean spacing, bootstrap confidence intervals for S, and a correlation coefficient or regression slope. Without such support, the observed decrease could be a small-sample artifact even within the Gaussian model.
  2. [III.C] The text states that 'according to this definition all networks in Fig. 2 are fully reducible to a single resistor,' but this is inconsistent with the immediately preceding sentence acknowledging irreducible networks and with the triangular network in Fig. 2(d), whose nodes all have degree at least 3 (counting loops twice) and therefore cannot be integrated out by the series/parallel rule (20). The general determinant formula (18) is sound, but the resistor analogy should be explicitly restricted to series-parallel networks; as written, the advertised 'analogy with networks of electric resistors in parallel or in series' overstates the scope of the reduction method.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (6)] The displayed rosette calculation has inconsistent indices: the first equality gives Z0Z8, while the second gives Z0Z4Z9. This appears to be a typo (Z9 should presumably be Z8, or the labelling in Fig. 3 should be reconciled), but it should be corrected.
  2. [V] The introduction to Section V promises to explore 'how the measurement of structural diversity changes if we consider labelled or unlabelled networks,' but the section computes Shannon entropies only for labelled networks; for unlabelled networks the analysis is limited to probabilities aggregated by number of ties (Fig. 13c). The promised labelled/unlabelled comparison should either be carried out or the promise should be removed.
  3. [V.A] The text refers to 'the standard deviation of {l_i}_{i=1,...,8}' for a fibre with n=8 TUs, but there are only seven inter-TU distances; the index should be i=1,...,7.
  4. [III.D] The expanded-network formalism introduced in Section III.D is not used in the structural-diversity calculations of Section V. Since the tight-network approximation is the basis for all numerical results, a brief statement of how finite cluster size might affect S would help readers assess the robustness of the biological conclusions.
  5. [IV] The proof that the orientation in chain-like configurations is unique up to permutation of multiple edges is asserted rather than demonstrated. A short argument justifying uniqueness would make the derivation of Eq. (26) easier to verify.
  6. [General] The manuscript as provided contains repeated extraneous lines (e.g., 'Let us try and draw two parallelepipeds on top of each other.') and duplicated tables and text from another article. These formatting issues must be cleaned before the paper can be considered for publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polydisperse weights and BEST-theorem multiplicities are derived from the stated Gaussian partition function and an external combinatorics theorem, not from fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: topological weights are defined by the Gaussian partition function (Eq. 2), evaluated explicitly for rosette/watermelon and general networks (Eqs. 6-18), and reduced to Kirchhoff-type integrations (Eq. 20). The combinatorial multiplicities are obtained by mapping an unlabelled network to an Eulerian digraph and applying the standard BEST theorem (Eq. 25), yielding explicit chain-like formulas (Eq. 26). No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction; the Shannon entropy (Eq. 39) is computed directly from the derived weights. The Gaussian-chain assumption is explicitly stated as an approximation, and the BEST theorem is an external, standard result. Citations to the authors' earlier work [16,17] supply the monodisperse baseline and enumeration formulas, but the polydisperse generalization, the resistor-network analogy, and the BEST-theorem counting are derived here from the stated equations. The Fig. 14 trend is a numerical observation without reported error bars, which is a statistical-support limitation rather than circularity: the weights are computed, not fitted, and the entropy trend does not reduce to an input by construction. Overall, no equation or claim is equivalent to its own inputs by definition or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Gaussian polymer statistical mechanics and the well-known BEST theorem, plus the paper's own combinatorial mapping from networks to Eulerian traversals. No new physical entities are introduced, and no constants are fitted to experimental data; the TU spacings are model inputs.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each chromatin segment is an ideal Gaussian chain with propagator exp(-3(x_{i+1}-x_i)^2/(2l_iσ)) and no excluded volume.
    Section III, Eq. (2); this is the model on which all topological weights are computed. The authors explicitly note it excludes self- and mutual-avoidance.
  • domain assumption All TUs belonging to a cluster are constrained to the same spatial point via Dirac delta functions δ(G) in Eq. (2).
    Section III; the 'tight' graph representation is used for all weights and entropy calculations, with 'expanded' networks only discussed qualitatively in Section IIID.
  • standard math The BEST theorem: the number of Eulerian cycles in a directed Eulerian graph equals the number of rooted spanning trees times the product over vertices of (outdegree-1)!.
    Section IVA, cited to van Aardenne-Ehrenfest and de Bruijn [28], Stanley [29], Fredricksen [30].
  • domain assumption The number of labelled networks corresponding to an unlabelled network equals the number of traversals of the glued Eulerian digraph, with multiple edges considered indistinguishable.
    Section IV, construction of the Eulerian digraph by gluing entry and exit edges; this mapping is the foundation of the multiplicity formulas.
  • domain assumption The probability of a labelled topology is its partition function ZG divided by the sum over all labelled topologies.
    Section V, Eq. (39); standard statistical mechanics, assuming the Gaussian partition function is the only factor determining relative abundance, with no kinetic or sequence-specific corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topological weight and structural diversity of polydisperse chromatin loop networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZ3N5ZW6

@misc{pith2026250700520,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topological weight and structural diversity of polydisperse chromatin loop networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZ3N5ZW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00520}
}
read the original abstract

Current biophysical models for transcriptionally active chromatin view this as a polymer with sticky sites, mimicking transcription units such as promoters and enhancers which interact via the binding of multivalent complexes of chromatin-binding proteins. It has been demonstrated that this model spontaneously leads to microphase separation, resulting in the formation of a network of loops with transcription units serving as anchors. Here, we demonstrate how to compute the topological weights of loop networks with an arbitrary 1D pattern of transcription units along the fibre (or `polydisperse' loop networks), finding an analogy with networks of electric resistors in parallel or in series. We also show how the BEST (de Bruijn, van Aardenne-Ehrenfest, Smith and Tutte) theorem in combinatorics can be used to find the combinatorial multiplicity of any class of loop networks. Our results can be used to compute the structural diversity, or Shannon entropy, of loop networks: we show that this quantity depends on the 1D patterning of transcription units along the chain, possibly providing a pathway to control transcriptional noise in eukaryotic genes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00520 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a-d) Examples of graph representations of chromatin loop networks. Labelled networks refer to these graphs with TU [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Loop network configurations, with TU and edge labelled (in red and blue respectively, in order of traversal). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Loop network configuration with TU and edge labelling (in red and blue respectively) used for the calculation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Resistor network representation of the polymer network of Fig. 4. (b) Integrating out the node positions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Examples of (a) tight and (b) expanded network. TUs are labelled in red, whereas dotted blue lines indicate nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Unlabelled networks. (a) Example of an unlabelled network configuration. (b) After directing the entry and exit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. A configuration (a) and the Eulerian digraph corresponding to it (b). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The spanning trees rooted at node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The most general chain configuration, where the labels of edges ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Types of inequivalent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Types of inequivalent 3-cluster chain-like configurations discussed in the text. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Scatter plot showing the structural diversity as a function of the standard deviation of the distance between neighbouring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Configuration 5 with three clusters and its orientation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Configuration 6 with three clusters and its orientation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chain-like configurations with two clusters In the case of two clusters, there are only two possibilities up to symmetries, shown in Fig. 11. For configurations as in Fig. 11 in which case Eq. (26) simplifies as (k1 +ℓ1)!(k1 +ℓ2)! ℓ1!ℓ2!(k1!)2 (27) for the number of traversals, whereas for configurations as in Fig. 11, the combinatorial multiplicity is (k...

    work page

  2. [2]

    gene topos

    Chain-like configurations with three clusters In the case of three clusters, there are four possible types of configurations, shown in Fig. 12. For the configuration For the case in Fig. 12(a), we can use Eq. (26) withs = 1, m = 3, t =m, hence the combinatorial multiplicity is (k1 +ℓ1)!(k1 +k2 +ℓ2)!(k2 +ℓ3)! ℓ1!ℓ2!ℓ3!(k1!)2(k2!)2 . (32) For configurations...

    work page

  3. [3]

    C. R. Calladine and H. Drew,Understanding DNA: the molecule and how it works(Academic press, 1997)

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Alberts, A

    B. Alberts, A. Johnson, J. Lewis, D. Morgan, and M. Raff,Molecular Biology of the Cell(Taylor & Francis, 2014) p. 1464

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Chiang, C

    M. Chiang, C. A. Brackley, C. Naughton, R.-S. Nozawa, C. Battaglia, D. Marenduzzo, and N. Gilbert, Cell Genomics4, 100698 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Rosa and R

    A. Rosa and R. Everaers, PLoS Comp. Biol.4, e1000153 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Barbieri, M

    M. Barbieri, M. Chotalia, J. Fraser, L.-M. Lavitas, J. Dostie, A. Pombo, and M. Nicodemi, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16173 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    D. Jost, P. Carrivain, G. Cavalli, and C. Vaillant, Nucleic Acids Res.42, 9553 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Di Pierro, B

    M. Di Pierro, B. Zhang, E. L. Aiden, P. G. Wolynes, and J. N. Onuchic, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA113, 12168 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    A. M. Chiariello, C. Annunziatella, S. Bianco, A. Esposito, and M. Nicodemi, Scientific Reports6, 29775 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Bianco, D

    S. Bianco, D. G. Lupiáñez, A. M. Chiariello, C. Annunziatella, K. Kraft, R. Schöpflin, L. Wittler, G. Andrey, M. Vingron, A. Pombo,et al., Nat. Genet.50, 662 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    C. A. Brackley, D. Marenduzzo, and N. Gilbert, Nat. Methods17, 767 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Chiang, C

    M. Chiang, C. A. Brackley, D. Marenduzzo, and N. Gilbert, Trends Genet. (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Chiang, G

    M. Chiang, G. Forte, N. Gilbert, D. Marenduzzo, and C. A. Brackley, Meth. Mol. Biol.2301, 267 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Chiang, D

    M. Chiang, D. Michieletto, C. A. Brackley, N. Rattanavirotkul, H. Mohammed, D. Marenduzzo, and T. Chandra, Cell Rep. 28, 3212 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Marenduzzo and E

    D. Marenduzzo and E. Orlandini, J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp.2009, L09002 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Brackley, N

    C. Brackley, N. Gilbert, D. Michieletto, A. Papantonis, M. Pereira, P. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo, Nat. Commun.12, 1 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Bonato, M

    A. Bonato, M. Chiang, D. Corbett, S. Kitaev, D. Marenduzzo, A. Morozov, and E. Orlandini, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 248403 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Bonato, M

    A. Bonato, M. Chiang, D. Corbett, S. Kitaev, D. Marenduzzo, A. Morozov, and E. Orlandini, Phys. Rev. E109, 064405 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    C. A. Brackley, J. Johnson, S. Kelly, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo, Nucleic Acids Res.44, 3503 (2016). 19

    2016

  13. [21]

    C. A. Brackley, S. Taylor, A. Papantonis, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA110, E3605 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    J.-K. Ryu, C. Bouchoux, H. W. Liu, E. Kim, M. Minamino, R. de Groot, A. J. Katan, A. Bonato, D. Marenduzzo, D. Michieletto,et al., Sci. Adv.7, eabe5905 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    P. R. Cook and D. Marenduzzo, Nucleic Acids Res.46, 9895 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Duplantier, Phys

    B. Duplantier, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 941 (1986)

    1986

  17. [25]

    Duplantier, J

    B. Duplantier, J. Stat. Phys.54, 581 (1989)

    1989

  18. [26]

    Chiang, C

    M. Chiang, C. Battaglia, G. Forte, C. A. Brackley, N. Gilbert, and D. Marenduzzo, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04907 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Kitaev and V

    S. Kitaev and V. Lozin,Words and graphs(Springer, 2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    De Gennes,Scaling concepts in polymer physics(Cornell university press, 1979)

    P.-G. De Gennes,Scaling concepts in polymer physics(Cornell university press, 1979)

    1979

  21. [29]

    Bóna and I

    M. Bóna and I. Mező, Eur. J. Comb.51, 500 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    van Aardenne-Ehrenfest and N

    T. van Aardenne-Ehrenfest and N. G. de Bruijn, Simon Stevin28, 203 (1951)

    1951

  23. [31]

    R. P. Stanley, Cambridge University Press2 (1999)

    1999

  24. [32]

    Fredricksen, SIAM Rev.24, 195 (1982)

    H. Fredricksen, SIAM Rev.24, 195 (1982)

    1982

  25. [33]

    The reader should note that in Ref. [3] the definition of structural diversity, though related, was slightly different from the one used here, as it was given in terms of promoter-centred networks, or in other words sets of TUs that form a loop with the promoter

  26. [34]

    Sukys and R

    A. Sukys and R. Grima, Cell Cycle44, 48 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    J. Xu, X. Li, X. Hao, X. Hu, S. Ma, Y. Hong, J. Zhang, D. Yan, H. Deng, J. Na,et al., bioRxiv , 2024 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Remini, M

    L. Remini, M. Segers, J. Palmeri, J.-C. Walter, A. Parmeggiani, and E. Carlon, Phys. Rev. E109, 024408 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Remini, M

    L. Remini, M. Segers, A. Parmeggiani, and E. Carlon, J. Chem. Phys.162 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Fudenberg, M

    G. Fudenberg, M. Imakaev, C. Lu, A. Goloborodko, N. Abdennur, and L. A. Mirny, Cell Rep.15, 2038 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    A. S. Hansen, I. Pustova, C. Cattoglio, R. Tjian, and X. Darzacq, eLife6, e25776 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    K. E. Polovnikov, H. B. Brandão, S. Belan, B. Slavov, M. Imakaev, and L. A. Mirny, Phys. Rev. X13, 041029 (2023). Appendix A: Combinatorial multiplicities of three-cluster configurations In this Appendix, we show how to enumerate all possible three-cluster configurations. Up t...

    2023

  33. [41]

    16, first note that for at least one traversal to exist we must havek1≥k3, andk1,k 2,k 3 are all even or all odd

    Configuration 5 in Table I For configuration 5 in Table I, also given to the left in Fig. 16, first note that for at least one traversal to exist we must havek1≥k3, andk1,k 2,k 3 are all even or all odd. Next, assume that configuration 5 is oriented as shown schematically to t...

  34. [42]

    edges are oriented froma to c (resp., c to a), k′ 2 (resp., k′′

  35. [43]

    edges are oriented fromc to d (resp., d to c), andk′ 3 (resp., k′′

  36. [44]

    So,k1 =k′ 1 +k′′ 1, k2 =k′ 2 +k′′ 2 and k3 =k′ 3 +k′′ 3, where 0≤k′ i,k′′ i ≤ki for 1, 2, 3

    edges are oriented fromd to a (resp., a to d). So,k1 =k′ 1 +k′′ 1, k2 =k′ 2 +k′′ 2 and k3 =k′ 3 +k′′ 3, where 0≤k′ i,k′′ i ≤ki for 1, 2, 3. Not to overcount symmetric configurations, we assume that ifk1 =k3 and ℓ2 =ℓ3 then k′ 1≥k′′

  37. [45]

    number of edgesn

    Finally, note that for at least one traversal in the oriented graph to exist, we must have k′ 1 +k′′ 2 =k′′ 1 +k′ 2 k′ 2 +k′′ 3 =k′′ 2 +k′ 3 k′ 1 +k′′ 3 =k′′ 1 +k′ 3 Note that typically, there will be more than one non-equivalent orientation and the general formula we are abou...

  38. [46]

    Next, similarly to our considerations of configuration 5, assume that configuration 6 is oriented as shown schematically to the right in Figure 17

    Configuration 6 in Table I For configuration 6 in Table I, also given to the left in Figure 17, for at least one traversal to exist we must havek1 and k2 are odd (resp., even) andk3 is even (resp., odd), that is,k1 and k2 are of the same parity which is opposite to parity ofk3...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.