Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 93 references

Differential Crosslinking and Contractile Motors Drive Nuclear Chromatin Compaction

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A weak radial crosslink bias, amplified by contractile motors, can sort the nucleus into heterochromatin at the edge and euchromatin at the center.

desk verdict A solid simulation study showing contractile motors can amplify an imposed peripheral crosslink gradient, but the permanence of that gradient makes the sufficiency claim conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17883 v1 pith:5NRA662G submitted 2025-07-23 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Ligesh Theeyancheri , Edward J. Banigan , J. M. Schwarz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords chromatincompartmentalizationheterochromatineuchromatincontractilemotorsHP1crosslinkingnuclearlaminaactivepolymersBrowniandynamicssimulations
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 argues that the conventional spatial organization of the interphase nucleus—dense heterochromatin at the periphery and looser euchromatin in the interior—can be produced by a surprisingly simple combination: a small radial bias in chromatin crosslinking plus the activity of contractile molecular motors. Using Brownian-dynamics simulations of a crosslinked chromatin polymer tethered to a deformable lamina shell, the authors show that a linearly increasing crosslink density toward the nuclear edge is amplified by contractile motors into a stable peripheral high-density domain, while uniform or inverted crosslink profiles fail to produce this pattern. The resulting euchromatin and heterochromatin compartments differ in local density by a factor of about 1.6, matching the roughly 50% density difference measured in living cells. The claim matters because it offers a mechanism for chromatin compartmentalization that does not require equilibrium phase separation or pre-existing stiffness differences between chromatin types; weak positional cues, amplified by motor activity, would be enough.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is carried by a computational model in which chromatin is a Rouse chain of 5000 monomers with excluded volume, crosslinked by springs whose initial density grows linearly with nuclear radius; the lamina is a deformable polymeric shell of 5000 monomers, and chromatin is randomly tethered to it. A fraction of chromatin monomers act as motors, exerting stochastic contractile or extensile forces with a turnover time of about 10 seconds. The load-bearing interaction is the local coupling between contractile motors and crosslinks: motors at the periphery accumulate crosslinks in their vicinity, increasing the local crosslink count per motor and compacting chromatin, which reinforces the pre-imposed radial gradient. The shell's deformability and the chromatin-lamina tethering are also required, since without tethers contractile motors pull chromatin toward the interior.

What would settle it

Measure the radial intensity profile of a chromatin crosslinker such as HP1α/γ in interphase nuclei of a cell line with conventional peripheral heterochromatin: if the profile is flat or decreasing toward the edge across many cells, the required crosslink pre-pattern is absent. Alternatively, deplete ATP or inhibit transcription to stop contractile motor activity; if peripheral heterochromatin enrichment persists, contractile motors are not necessary for maintaining the compartmentalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is stated in Section III.A: 'the synergistic action of contractile motors and a linearly increasing radial profile of crosslinks is sufficient to recapitulate the conventional nuclear architecture.' In the model, contractile motors are preferentially found near the periphery when crosslinks are initially biased outward, and they draw additional crosslinks into their local environment, raising the number of crosslinks per motor and compacting chromatin there. Heterochromatin-like monomers, identified by a local density threshold, occupy the outer shell while euchromatin-like monomers fill the interior, with average local densities of roughly 0.44 and 0.27, respectively. The same mechanism also makes lamina wrinkles stiffer than bulges, linking peripheral compaction to the instantaneous nuclear stiffening seen under nanoindentation.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the nucleus contains a stable, radially increasing pre-pattern of chromatin crosslinkers that persists without turnover; no experiment has directly measured such a gradient, and if cells lack it or crosslinks rearrange quickly, the proposed mechanism may not operate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, conventional peripheral heterochromatin does not require phase separation, sequence-specific lamina attraction, or distinct bending stiffnesses; motor-amplified crosslink patterning suffices.
  • A small radial differential in crosslinking—not a strong one—is enough to produce the observed organization, so cells need only a modest peripheral bias in crosslinker (e.g., HP1) localization.
  • Increasing the number of crosslinks or chromatin-lamina tethers strengthens peripheral compaction, making these two parameters natural handles for experimental perturbations.
  • The model predicts that euchromatin moves slightly faster than heterochromatin, in line with prior observations, and that inhibiting contractile motor activity should erase or weaken the peripheral high-density compartment.
  • Peripheral compaction below the lamina locally stiffens wrinkles, explaining instantaneous nuclear stiffening under indentation as a chromatin-driven effect rather than a purely lamina response.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The argument implies a testable prediction the paper does not fully develop: an imaging assay for the radial distribution of a chromatin crosslinker such as HP1 should reveal a peripheral gradient in cells that show conventional organization; a flat or inverted gradient would undercut the mechanism.
  • Because the model's crosslinks are topologically permanent, the mechanism's robustness to crosslink turnover is an open question; if in vivo crosslinks turn over on timescales shorter than the motor-driven reorganization, the pre-pattern may need continuous maintenance.
  • The same amplification principle—weak positional bias plus contractile activity—could in principle organize other confined polymer systems, such as bacterial nucleoids or synthetic active gels, where a small boundary bias is amplified into a dense shell.
  • Extensile motors acting on the same crosslink profile do the opposite (decompaction), suggesting that the sign of motor activity, not just its magnitude, is a switch between interior and peripheral chromatin states.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses Brownian dynamics simulations of a single Rouse chromatin chain confined inside a deformable polymer lamina shell to ask whether motor activity and spatially patterned crosslinks can produce conventional nuclear chromatin architecture, with heterochromatin-like dense chromatin at the periphery and euchromatin-like chromatin in the interior. The model includes passive, extensile, and contractile motors; uniform, linear, and inverted radial crosslink profiles; chromatin-lamina tethers; and a soft shell. The authors report that the combination of contractile motors and a linearly increasing radial crosslink profile yields pronounced peripheral chromatin compaction, that a local-density cutoff classifies the resulting domains into heterochromatin-like and euchromatin-like populations with a mean density ratio of about 1.6, and that contractile-motor-induced wrinkles show smaller local positional fluctuations than bulges. They interpret these results as evidence that motor activity can amplify a pre-existing peripheral crosslink bias into stable peripheral heterochromatin, and they propose experiments that perturb HP1 levels and motor activity to test the mechanism.

Significance. If the mechanism holds, the paper would add a simple, non-phase-separation route to conventional nuclear organization: a small radial gradient in crosslinking, amplified by contractile motor activity, is sufficient to create a peripheral dense chromatin shell. The study is careful in its controls: the passive system with the same linear crosslink profile does not produce peripheral enrichment, and reference simulations without crosslinks or without lamina linkages isolate the roles of connectivity and tethering. The switch between extensile and contractile motors provides a clean test of the proposed mechanism, and the parameter sweeps over crosslink number and tether number give the central observation internal consistency. The experimental proposal section is useful, though mostly qualitative. The main weakness is that the mechanism is demonstrated for one idealized crosslink dynamics, and the quantitative euchromatin/heterochromatin comparison rests on an arbitrary local-density threshold; both need additional support before the biological sufficiency claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [II (Model), III.A] The crosslinks are 'initialized once at the start of the simulation and remain topologically fixed throughout' (Section II). The linear radial crosslink profile is therefore a quenched, externally imposed condition, and the Section III.A claim that contractile motors plus a linear crosslink profile are 'sufficient to recapitulate the conventional nuclear architecture' is conditional on the absence of crosslink turnover. Since the proposed biological counterparts, HP1-family crosslinkers, bind and unbind on finite timescales, please test whether peripheral compaction survives reversible crosslink dynamics, for example by allowing crosslinks to detach and re-form on a timescale tau_c comparable to or shorter than tau_m = 20, and over the simulation duration tau = 10^3. Alternatively, explicitly restrict the sufficiency claim to effectively permanent crosslinks and state the required residence-time range.
  2. [III.B and Fig. 4] The euchromatin/heterochromatin classification uses a single local-density cutoff phi_cut = 95% of the total chromatin density, and no sensitivity analysis is reported. The quantitative agreement with experiment (mean local densities 0.27 and 0.44, and ratio 1.6 versus the reported '50% more dense' heterochromatin) is therefore conditional on this arbitrary threshold. Please vary phi_cut over a reasonable range and report how the density ratio and the radial EuCh/HetCh profiles change; if the 1.6 ratio is not robust to the cutoff choice, the quantitative comparison should be softened to a qualitative statement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Discussion (Section IV)] The word 'espeically' appears in the experimental-validation paragraph and should be corrected to 'especially'.
  2. [Acknowledgments] The phrase 'funding support form' appears to contain a typo and should be 'funding support from'.
  3. [II, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) lists both FTh and fn(t) as force terms; please clarify whether these are distinct contributions or whether one of them is the thermal noise already accounted for in the fluctuation-dissipation relation.
  4. [III (all figures)] The text states that 50 initial configurations are generated, but the main figures do not report error bars or confidence intervals; please specify how many configurations are averaged and include a measure of variability for the central density-profile and density-ratio claims.
  5. [III.D and Fig. 7] The statement that wrinkles are 'stiffer' than bulges is based on delta_local, the inverse squared local positional fluctuation, rather than a direct mechanical measurement; please rephrase this conclusion as 'wrinkles exhibit smaller local positional fluctuations' unless a direct stiffness measure is provided.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the reported 50% heterochromatin/euchromatin density difference is built into the authors' density-threshold definition of heterochromatin, though the peripheral-localization result is independent.

  1. self definitional [Section III.B, Fig. 4a-c]
    "Monomers with ϕi loc > ϕcut (where ϕcut represents 95% of the total chromatin density) are categorized as heterochromatin (HetCh), while the remaining monomers are classified as euchromatin (EuCh). ... The average local densities are ⟨ϕc local(E)⟩ ≈ 0.27 for euchromatin and ⟨ϕc local(H)⟩ ≈ 0.44 for heterochromatin. The resulting density ratio ... ≈ 1.6, quantifies the degree of chromatin compaction, which is aligned with experimental reports of a 50% density increase in heterochromatin relative to euchromatin [6]."

    Heterochromatin is defined as the set of monomers whose local density exceeds a 95th-percentile threshold. By construction, the mean local density of that high-density tail exceeds the mean of the remaining 95% of monomers, so the finding that 'heterochromatin is denser than euchromatin' is guaranteed by the classification rule rather than being an emergent model prediction. The specific ratio ≈1.6 is controlled by the arbitrarily chosen 95% cutoff; changing the percentile would change the ratio. Thus the claimed quantitative agreement with the experimental 50% density difference is a self-fulfilling comparison. The nontrivial part of the result — that the high-density class is localized at the nuclear periphery — is not captured by this ratio and remains an independent model output.

full rationale

The central mechanism claim — that contractile motors amplify a prescribed linear radial crosslink gradient into peripheral heterochromatin-like compaction — is not circular. The crosslink gradient is an input, but the paper shows the passive system with the same gradient remains homogeneous (Fig. 2b), and uniform or inverted crosslink profiles with contractile motors do not produce peripheral enrichment (Fig. 2d). The output is therefore not trivially encoded in the input. Motor rebinding is random, and the peripheral motor/crosslink correlation in Fig. 5 is an emergent property of the dynamics. Self-citations [49,57] supply the base polymer model and HP1 crosslinker biology; they are not used to forbid alternatives or as the sole justification for the main result. The circularity is localized to the quantitative validation in Section III.B. By defining heterochromatin as the top 5% of the local-density distribution, the paper guarantees that this class has a higher mean density than euchromatin, so the reported ≈1.6 density ratio and its claimed agreement with the experimental 50% value are consequences of the classification threshold rather than independent predictions. The peripheral positioning of the dense class remains a genuine, nontrivial model result, which is why the paper is only partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several coarse-grained assumptions. The most consequential for the central claim are the prescribed linear crosslink gradient and the permanence of crosslinks. The density-based classification of euchromatin and heterochromatin is an analysis choice that partly determines the quantitative agreement with experiments. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Linear crosslink profile slope = Probability proportional to r_i/R_s
    The radial crosslink density gradient is a model input inspired by HP1 localization, but its quantitative form is not derived from or fit to experimental data.
  • Euchromatin/heterochromatin density cutoff = 95% of total chromatin density (phi_cut)
    Used to classify monomers into heterochromatin and euchromatin; this arbitrary threshold determines the reported density ratio of about 1.6.
  • Bulge/wrinkle classification threshold = 10% deviation from average radius
    Choice of threshold for classifying lamina deformations may influence the comparison of wrinkle and bulge stiffness.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Overdamped Langevin dynamics with thermal noise obeying fluctuation-dissipation relation (Eq. 2).
    Standard simulation framework for colloidal and polymer systems; not in dispute.
  • domain assumption Chromatin is a Rouse chain with excluded volume; lamina is a Hookean spring mesh with average coordination 4.5.
    Coarse-grained representation of chromatin and lamin network; the model intentionally simplifies real chromatin and lamin architecture.
  • domain assumption Crosslinks are permanent and topologically fixed once assigned.
    In cells, crosslinkers such as HP1 turn over; permanence may create artificial memory that strengthens the peripheral pattern. The paper does not test crosslink turnover.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial crosslink density profile is linear in radius for the linear case (probability proportional to r_i/R_s).
    Inspired by HP1 biology but no direct measurement justifies this exact functional form; the slope is a chosen parameter.
  • ad hoc to paper Euchromatin/heterochromatin classification uses a local density cutoff at 95% of total chromatin density.
    The threshold phi_cut is chosen post hoc and determines the reported 1.6 density ratio.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Differential Crosslinking and Contractile Motors Drive Nuclear Chromatin Compaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NRA662G

@misc{pith2026250717883,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Differential Crosslinking and Contractile Motors Drive Nuclear Chromatin Compaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NRA662G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17883}
}
read the original abstract

During interphase, a typical cell nucleus features spatial compartmentalization of transcriptionally active euchromatin and repressed heterochromatin domains. In conventional nuclear organization, euchromatin predominantly occupies the nuclear interior, while heterochromatin, which is approximately 50% more dense than euchromatin, is positioned near the nuclear periphery. Peripheral chromatin organization can be further modulated by the nuclear lamina, which is itself a deformable structure. While a number of biophysical mechanisms for compartmentalization within rigid nuclei have been explored, we study a chromatin model consisting of an active, crosslinked polymer tethered to a deformable, polymeric lamina shell. Contractile motors, the deformability of the shell, and the spatial distribution of crosslinks all play pivotal roles in this compartmentalization. We find that a radial crosslink density distribution, even with a small linear differential of higher crosslinking density at the edge of the nucleus, combined with contractile motor activity, drives genomic segregation, in agreement with experimental observations. This arises from contractile motors preferentially drawing crosslinks into their vicinity at the nuclear periphery, forming high-density domains that promote heterochromatin formation. We also find an increased stiffness of nuclear wrinkles given the preferential heterochromatin compaction below the lamina shell, which is consistent with instantaneous nuclear stiffening under applied nanoindentation. We conclude with the potential for experimental validation of our model predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17883 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3D computational model of chromatin in a deformable nucleus. (a) A two-dimensional schematic of the model. (b) A schematic illustrating the two types of motors acting on the chromatin. (c) A Simulation snapshot. The chromatin polymer consists of linearly connected monomers, depicted in red, while the active chromatin subunits are shown in cyan. The lamina is made up of lamin subunits, represented in grey. (d) The ra… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial chromatin density shaped by motors and crosslink profiles. Chromatin density, ϕc, as a function of Rs. (a) Initial chromatin density at t = 0, and final chromatin density for (b) passive, (c) extensile, and (d) contractile motors, for different crosslink density profiles. The rescaled chromatin density, ϕ fm̸=0 c ϕ fm=0 c , is shown in the insets of panels (c) and (d), highlighting motor-induced changes relat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Influence of motor activity and number of crosslinks on chromatin distribution. Chromatin density, ϕc, as a function of Rs for (a) passive, (b) extensile, and (c) contractile motors, shown for different numbers of crosslinks (Nc) with a linear crosslink density profile. Results correspond to NL = 600 chromatin crosslinks. All quantities are reported in simulation units (s. u.), where 1 s. u. of length = 1 µm and 1 s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Contractile motor-induced organization of euchromatin and heterochromatin. (a) Schematic illustrating the categorization of chromatin monomers into euchromatin (EuCh) and heterochromatin (HetCh) based on a local density cutoff (ϕ i/j loc ). (b) Density of EuCh and HetC…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of motor density and motor–crosslink associations for linear and inverted crosslink profiles. Radial distribution of (i) motor density (ρm) and (ii) the average number of crosslinks per motor. Density color map of the number of crosslinks per motor (Nm c )…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Motor–crosslink coupling modulates local chromatin density for linear and inverted crosslink profiles. Colormap of local chromatin density (ϕ c loc) as a function of nuclear radius (Rs) and number of crosslinks per motor (Nm c ) for extensile and contractile motors for…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temporal profile of nuclear deformations and local properties of bulges and wrinkles with motor activity for a linear crosslink profile. Time evolution of (a) the number of bulges/wrinkles (Ndef ) for (i) extensile and (ii) contractile motors, (b) chromatin density (ϕp…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Misteli, The self-organizing genome: principles of genome architecture and function, Cell 183, 28 (2020)

    T. Misteli, The self-organizing genome: principles of genome architecture and function, Cell 183, 28 (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    Kalukula, A

    Y. Kalukula, A. D. Stephens, J. Lammerding, and S. Gabriele, Mechanics and functional consequences of 11 nuclear deformations, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 23, 583 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Solovei, K

    I. Solovei, K. Thanisch, and Y. Feodorova, How to rule the nucleus: divide et impera, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 40, 47 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Dekker and L

    J. Dekker and L. A. Mirny, The chromosome folding problem and how cells solve it, Cell 187, 6424 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Solovei, M

    I. Solovei, M. Kreysing, C. Lanctˆ ot, S. K¨ osem, L. Peichl, T. Cremer, J. Guck, and B. Joffe, Nuclear architecture of rod photoreceptor cells adapts to vision in mammalian evolution, Cell 137, 356 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    R. Imai, T. Nozaki, T. Tani, K. Kaizu, K. Hibino, S. Ide, S. Tamura, K. Takahashi, M. Shribak, and K. Maeshima, Density imaging of heterochromatin in live cells using orientation-independent-DIC microscopy, Mol. Biol. Cell 28, 3349 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    H. D. Ou, S. Phan, T. J. Deerinck, A. Thor, M. H. El- lisman, and C. C. O’shea, Chromemt: Visualizing 3d chromatin structure and compaction in interphase and mitotic cells, Science 357, eaag0025 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Barbieri, M

    M. Barbieri, M. Chotalia, J. Fraser, L.-M. Lavitas, J. Dostie, A. Pombo, and M. Nicodemi, Complexity of chromatin folding is captured by the strings and binders switch model, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16173 (2012)

    2012

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    D. Jost, P. Carrivain, G. Cavalli, and C. Vaillant, Model- ing epigenome folding: formation and dynamics of topo- logically associated chromatin domains, Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 9553 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Di Pierro, B

    M. Di Pierro, B. Zhang, E. L. Aiden, P. G. Wolynes, and J. N. Onuchic, Transferable model for chromosome archi- tecture, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12168 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    A. G. Larson, D. Elnatan, M. M. Keenen, M. J. Trnka, J. B. Johnston, A. L. Burlingame, D. A. Agard, S. Red- ding, and G. J. Narlikar, Liquid droplet formation by HP1α suggests a role for phase separation in heterochro- matin, Nature 547, 236 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    A. R. Strom, A. V. Emelyanov, M. Mir, D. V. Fyo- dorov, X. Darzacq, and G. H. Karpen, Phase separation drives heterochromatin domain formation, Nature 547, 241 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    S. S. Rao, S.-C. Huang, B. G. St Hilaire, J. M. Engreitz, E. M. Perez, K.-R. Kieffer-Kwon, A. L. Sanborn, S. E. Johnstone, G. D. Bascom, I. D. Bochkov, et al., Cohesin loss eliminates all loop domains, Cell 171, 305 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Nuebler, G

    J. Nuebler, G. Fudenberg, M. Imakaev, N. Abdennur, and L. A. Mirny, Chromatin organization by an interplay of loop extrusion and compartmental segregation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, E6697 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    M. Falk, Y. Feodorova, N. Naumova, M. Imakaev, B. R. Lajoie, H. Leonhardt, B. Joffe, J. Dekker, G. Fudenberg, I. Solovei, et al., Heterochromatin drives compartmental- ization of inverted and conventional nuclei, Nature 570, 395 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    B. A. Gibson, L. K. Doolittle, M. W. Schneider, L. E. Jensen, N. Gamarra, L. Henry, D. W. Gerlich, S. Red- ding, and M. K. Rosen, Organization of chromatin by intrinsic and regulated phase separation, Cell 179, 470 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    L. Wang, Y. Gao, X. Zheng, C. Liu, S. Dong, R. Li, G. Zhang, Y. Wei, H. Qu, Y. Li, et al., Histone modifi- cations regulate chromatin compartmentalization by con- tributing to a phase separation mechanism, Mol. Cell 76, 646 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Sanulli, M

    S. Sanulli, M. Trnka, V. Dharmarajan, R. Tibble, B. Pas- cal, A. Burlingame, P. Griffin, J. Gross, and G. Narlikar, HP1 reshapes nucleosome core to promote phase separa- tion of heterochromatin, Nature 575, 390 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Amiad-Pavlov, D

    D. Amiad-Pavlov, D. Lorber, G. Bajpai, A. Reuveny, F. Roncato, R. Alon, S. Safran, and T. Volk, Live imaging of chromatin distribution reveals novel principles of nu- clear architecture and chromatin compartmentalization, Sci. Adv. 7, eabf6251 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Adame-Arana, G

    O. Adame-Arana, G. Bajpai, D. Lorber, T. Volk, and S. Safran, Regulation of chromatin microphase separa- tion by binding of protein complexes, eLife 12, e82983 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    L. A. Mirny, M. Imakaev, and N. Abdennur, Two ma- jor mechanisms of chromosome organization, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 58, 142 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Bajpai, D

    G. Bajpai, D. Amiad Pavlov, D. Lorber, T. Volk, and S. Safran, Mesoscale phase separation of chromatin in the nucleus, eLife 10, e63976 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    A. G. Attar, J. Paturej, E. J. Banigan, and A. Erba¸ s, Chromatin phase separation and nuclear shape fluctua- tions are correlated in a polymer model of the nucleus, Nucleus 15, 2351957 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Ghosh, V

    S. Ghosh, V. C. Cuevas, B. Seelbinder, and C. P. Neu, Image-based elastography of heterochromatin and eu- chromatin domains in the deforming cell nucleus, Small 17, 2006109 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    P. R. Cook and D. Marenduzzo, Entropic organization of interphase chromosomes, J. Cell Biol. 186, 825 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Brunet, N

    A. Brunet, N. Destainville, and P. Collas, Physical con- straints in polymer modeling of chromatin associations with the nuclear periphery at kilobase scale, Nucleus 12, 6 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Girard, M

    M. Girard, M. O. De La Cruz, J. F. Marko, and A. Erba¸ s, Heterogeneous flexibility can contribute to chromatin segregation in the cell nucleus, Phys. Rev. E 110, 014403 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    C. A. Brackley, S. Taylor, A. Papantonis, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo, Nonspecific bridging-induced attraction drives clustering of DNA-binding proteins and genome organization, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, E3605 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    C. A. Brackley, J. Johnson, S. Kelly, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo, Simulated binding of transcription fac- tors to active and inactive regions folds human chromo- somes into loops, rosettes and topological domains, Nu- cleic Acids Res. 44, 3503 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Ganai, S

    N. Ganai, S. Sengupta, and G. I. Menon, Chromo- some positioning from activity-based segregation, Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 4145 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    A. Y. Grosberg and J.-F. Joanny, Nonequilibrium statis- tical mechanics of mixtures of particles in contact with different thermostats, Phys. Rev. E 92, 032118 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Smrek and K

    J. Smrek and K. Kremer, Small activity differences drive phase separation in active-passive polymer mixtures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 098002 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    L. Liu, G. Shi, D. Thirumalai, and C. Hyeon, Chain orga- nization of human interphase chromosome determines the spatiotemporal dynamics of chromatin loci, PLoS Com- put. Biol. 14, e1006617 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    R. Das, T. Sakaue, G. Shivashankar, J. Prost, and T. Hi- raiwa, How enzymatic activity is involved in chromatin organization, eLife 11, e79901 (2022). 12

    2022

  27. [35]

    Chaki, L

    S. Chaki, L. Theeyancheri, and R. Chakrabarti, A poly- mer chain with dipolar active forces in connection to spatial organization of chromatin, Soft Matter 19, 1348 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Mahajan, W

    A. Mahajan, W. Yan, A. Zidovska, D. Saintillan, and M. J. Shelley, Euchromatin activity enhances segregation and compaction of heterochromatin in the cell nucleus, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041033 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Hilbert, Y

    L. Hilbert, Y. Sato, K. Kuznetsova, T. Bianucci, H. Kimura, F. J¨ ulicher, A. Honigmann, V. Zaburdaev, and N. L. Vastenhouw, Transcription organizes euchro- matin via microphase separation, Nat. Commun. 12, 1360 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Brahmachari, T

    S. Brahmachari, T. Markovich, F. C. MacKintosh, and J. N. Onuchic, Temporally correlated active forces drive segregation and enhanced dynamics in chromosome poly- mers, PRX Life 2, 033003 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Goychuk, D

    A. Goychuk, D. Kannan, A. K. Chakraborty, and M. Kar- dar, Polymer folding through active processes recreates features of genome organization, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2221726120 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Zidovska, D

    A. Zidovska, D. A. Weitz, and T. J. Mitchison, Micron- scale coherence in interphase chromatin dynamics, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 110, 15555 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    H. A. Shaban, R. Barth, and K. Bystricky, Formation of correlated chromatin domains at nanoscale dynamic resolution during transcription, Nucleic Acids Res. 46, e77 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Khanna, Y

    N. Khanna, Y. Zhang, J. S. Lucas, O. K. Dudko, and C. Murre, Chromosome dynamics near the sol-gel phase transition dictate the timing of remote genomic interac- tions, Nat. Commun. 10, 2771 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Barth, K

    R. Barth, K. Bystricky, and H. Shaban, Coupling chro- matin structure and dynamics by live super-resolution imaging, Science advances 6, eaaz2196 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    H. A. Shaban, R. Barth, L. Recoules, and K. Bystricky, Hi-D: nanoscale mapping of nuclear dynamics in single living cells, Genome Biol. 21, 95 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Eshghi, J

    I. Eshghi, J. A. Eaton, and A. Zidovska, Interphase chro- matin undergoes a local sol-gel transition upon cell dif- ferentiation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 228101 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Locatelli, J

    M. Locatelli, J. Lawrimore, H. Lin, S. Sanaullah, C. Seitz, D. Segall, P. Kefer, N. Salvador Moreno, B. Lietz, R. An- derson, et al., DNA damage reduces heterogeneity and coherence of chromatin motions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2205166119 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Bruinsma, A

    R. Bruinsma, A. Y. Grosberg, Y. Rabin, and A. Zidovska, Chromatin hydrodynamics, Biophys. J.106, 1871 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    F.-Y. Chu, S. C. Haley, and A. Zidovska, On the origin of shape fluctuations of the cell nucleus, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10338 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    K. Liu, A. E. Patteson, E. J. Banigan, and J. Schwarz, Dynamic nuclear structure emerges from chromatin cross-links and motors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 158101 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    I. K. Berg, M. L. Currey, S. Gupta, Y. Berrada, B. V. Nguyen, M. Pho, A. E. Patteson, J. Schwarz, E. J. Ban- igan, and A. D. Stephens, Transcription inhibition sup- presses nuclear blebbing and rupture independently of nuclear rigidity, J. Cell Sci. 136, jcs261547 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Prince, K

    K. Prince, K. Lin, A. Li, N. Borowski, and A. D. Stephens, Transcriptional activity generates chromatin motion that drives nuclear blebbing, bioRxiv , 2025 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Zidovska, The self-stirred genome: large-scale chro- matin dynamics, its biophysical origins and implications, Curr

    A. Zidovska, The self-stirred genome: large-scale chro- matin dynamics, its biophysical origins and implications, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 61, 83 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Bird, Cohesin as an essential disruptor of chromosome organization, Mol

    A. Bird, Cohesin as an essential disruptor of chromosome organization, Mol. Cell 85, 1054 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Canzio, E

    D. Canzio, E. Y. Chang, S. Shankar, K. M. Kuchen- becker, M. D. Simon, H. D. Madhani, G. J. Narlikar, and B. Al-Sady, Chromodomain-mediated oligomeriza- tion of HP1 suggests a nucleosome-bridging mechanism for heterochromatin assembly, Mol. Cell 41, 67 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Canzio, A

    D. Canzio, A. Larson, and G. J. Narlikar, Mechanisms of functional promiscuity by HP1 proteins, Trends Cell Biol. 24, 377 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Machida, Y

    S. Machida, Y. Takizawa, M. Ishimaru, Y. Sugita, S. Sekine, J.-i. Nakayama, M. Wolf, and H. Kurumizaka, Structural basis of heterochromatin formation by human HP1, Molecular cell 69, 385 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    A. R. Strom, R. J. Biggs, E. J. Banigan, X. Wang, K. Chiu, C. Herman, J. Collado, F. Yue, J. C. Rit- land Politz, L. J. Tait, et al., HP1 α is a chromatin crosslinker that controls nuclear and mitotic chromosome mechanics, eLife 10, e63972 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Sokolova, J

    V. Sokolova, J. Miratsky, V. Svetlov, M. Brenowitz, J. Vant, T. S. Lewis, K. Dryden, G. Lee, S. Sarkar, E. Nudler, et al. , Structural mechanism of HP1 α- dependent transcriptional repression and chromatin com- paction, Structure 32, 2094 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Kumar and H

    A. Kumar and H. Kono, Heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1): interactions with itself and chromatin compo- nents, Biophys. Rev. 12, 387 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Y. Yang, R. Liu, R. Qiu, Y. Zheng, W. Huang, H. Hu, Q. Ji, H. He, Y. Shang, Y. Gong, et al. , Crl4b promotes tumorigenesis by coordinating with SUV39H1/HP1/DNMT3A in DNA methylation-based epigenetic silencing, Oncogene 34, 104 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    Saintillan, M

    D. Saintillan, M. J. Shelley, and A. Zidovska, Extensile motor activity drives coherent motions in a model of in- terphase chromatin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11442 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Redding, Dynamic asymmetry and why chromatin de- fies simple physical definitions, Curr

    S. Redding, Dynamic asymmetry and why chromatin de- fies simple physical definitions, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 70, 116 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    A. E. Patteson, A. Vahabikashi, K. Pogoda, S. A. Adam, K. Mandal, M. Kittisopikul, S. Sivagurunathan, A. Gold- man, R. D. Goldman, and P. A. Janmey, Vimentin pro- tects cells against nuclear rupture and DNA damage dur- ing migration, J. Cell Biol. 218, 4079 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    W. Tang, X. Chen, X. Wang, M. Zhu, G. Shan, T. Wang, W. Dou, J. Wang, J. Law, Z. Gong, et al., Indentation induces instantaneous nuclear stiffening and unfolding of nuclear envelope wrinkles, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2307356120 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Tajik, Y

    A. Tajik, Y. Zhang, F. Wei, J. Sun, Q. Jia, W. Zhou, R. Singh, N. Khanna, A. S. Belmont, and N. Wang, Tran- scription upregulation via force-induced direct stretching of chromatin, Nat. Mater. 15, 1287 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    A. D. Stephens, E. J. Banigan, and J. F. Marko, Chro- matin’s physical properties shape the nucleus and its functions, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 58, 76 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    M. M. Nava, Y. A. Miroshnikova, L. C. Biggs, D. B. Whitefield, F. Metge, J. Boucas, H. Vihinen, E. Jokitalo, X. Li, J. M. G. Arcos, et al., Heterochromatin-driven nuclear softening protects the genome against mechanical stress-induced damage, Cell 181, 800 (2020). 13

    2020

  60. [68]

    C.-R. Hsia, J. McAllister, O. Hasan, J. Judd, S. Lee, R. Agrawal, C.-Y. Chang, P. Soloway, and J. Lammerd- ing, Confined migration induces heterochromatin for- mation and alters chromatin accessibility, iScience 25 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Liang, Y.-J

    H. Liang, Y.-J. Wang, Y. Liu, W. Liu, B. Liu, and Y.-J. Liu, Microtopography-induced nuclear deformation trig- gers chromatin reorganization and cytoskeleton remodel- ing, Chem. Biomed. Imaging 2, 481 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    A. G. Attar, J. Paturej, O. S. Sariyer, E. J. Banigan, and A. Erbas, Peripheral heterochromatin tethering is re- quired for chromatin-based nuclear mechanical response, bioRxiv , 2025 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Y. A. Miroshnikova and S. A. Wickstr¨ om, Mechanical forces in nuclear organization, Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 14, a039685 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    A. D. Stephens, E. J. Banigan, S. A. Adam, R. D. Gold- man, and J. F. Marko, Chromatin and lamin A determine two different mechanical response regimes of the cell nu- cleus, Mol. Biol. Cell 28, 1984 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    E. J. Banigan, A. D. Stephens, and J. F. Marko, Mechan- ics and buckling of biopolymeric shells and cell nuclei, Biophys. J. 113, 1654 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    T. J. Kirby and J. Lammerding, Emerging views of the nucleus as a cellular mechanosensor, Nat. Cell Biol. 20, 373 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    M. C. Lionetti, S. Bonfanti, M. R. Fumagalli, Z. Budrikis, F. Font-Clos, G. Costantini, O. Chepizhko, S. Zapperi, and C. A. La Porta, Chromatin and cytoskeletal tether- ing determine nuclear morphology in progerin-expressing cells, Biophys. J. 118, 2319 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Shinkai, T

    S. Shinkai, T. Nozaki, K. Maeshima, and Y. Togashi, Dynamic nucleosome movement provides structural in- formation of topological chromatin domains in living hu- man cells, PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1005136 (2016)

    2016

  69. [77]

    Minami, K

    K. Minami, K. Nakazato, S. Ide, K. Kaizu, K. Higashi, S. Tamura, A. Toyoda, K. Takahashi, K. Kurokawa, and K. Maeshima, Replication-dependent histone la- beling dissects the physical properties of euchro- matin/heterochromatin in living human cells, Sci. Adv. 11, eadu8400 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    N. A. Hathaway, O. Bell, C. Hodges, E. L. Miller, D. S. Neel, and G. R. Crabtree, Dynamics and memory of het- erochromatin in living cells, Cell 149, 1447 (2012)

    2012

  71. [79]

    Nozaki, R

    T. Nozaki, R. Imai, M. Tanbo, R. Nagashima, S. Tamura, T. Tani, Y. Joti, M. Tomita, K. Hibino, M. T. Kane- maki, et al., Dynamic organization of chromatin domains revealed by super-resolution live-cell imaging, Mol. Cell 67, 282 (2017)

    2017

  72. [80]

    Poleshko, K

    A. Poleshko, K. M. Mansfield, C. C. Burlingame, M. D. Andrake, N. R. Shah, and R. A. Katz, The human pro- tein prr14 tethers heterochromatin to the nuclear lam- ina during interphase and mitotic exit, Cell Rep. 5, 292 (2013)

    2013

  73. [81]

    S. M. Schreiner, P. K. Koo, Y. Zhao, S. G. Mochrie, and M. C. King, The tethering of chromatin to the nuclear envelope supports nuclear mechanics, Nat. Commun 6, 7159 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    A. D. Stephens, P. Z. Liu, E. J. Banigan, L. M. Almas- salha, V. Backman, S. A. Adam, R. D. Goldman, and J. F. Marko, Chromatin histone modifications and rigid- ity affect nuclear morphology independent of lamins, Mol. Biol. Cell 29, 220 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    Talwar, A

    S. Talwar, A. Kumar, M. Rao, G. I. Menon, and G. Shivashankar, Correlated spatio-temporal fluctuations in chromatin compaction states characterize stem cells, Biophys. J. 104, 553 (2013)

    2013

  76. [84]

    Bintu, L

    B. Bintu, L. J. Mateo, J.-H. Su, N. A. Sinnott- Armstrong, M. Parker, S. Kinrot, K. Yamaya, A. N. Boettiger, and X. Zhuang, Super-resolution chromatin tracing reveals domains and cooperative interactions in single cells, Science 362, eaau1783 (2018)

    2018

  77. [85]

    S. V. Brasher, B. O. Smith, R. H. Fogh, D. Nietlispach, A. Thiru, P. R. Nielsen, R. W. Broadhurst, L. J. Ball, N. V. Murzina, and E. D. Laue, The structure of mouse HP1 suggests a unique mode of single peptide recognition by the shadow chromo domain dimer, EMBO J. (2000)

    2000

  78. [86]

    Ayyanathan, M

    K. Ayyanathan, M. S. Lechner, P. Bell, G. G. Maul, D. C. Schultz, Y. Yamada, K. Tanaka, K. Torigoe, and F. J. Rauscher, Regulated recruitment of HP1 to a eu- chromatic gene induces mitotically heritable, epigenetic gene silencing: a mammalian cell culture model of gene variega...

    2003

  79. [87]

    P. J. Verschure, I. Van Der Kraan, W. De Leeuw, J. Van Der Vlag, A. E. Carpenter, A. S. Belmont, and R. Van Driel, In vivo HP1 targeting causes large- scale chromatin condensation and enhanced histone ly- sine methylation, Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 4552 (2005)

    2005

  80. [88]

    Y. Shin, J. Berry, N. Pannucci, M. P. Haataja, J. E. Toettcher, and C. P. Brangwynne, Spatiotemporal con- trol of intracellular phase transitions using light-activated optodroplets, Cell 168, 159 (2017)

    2017

  81. [89]

    Erdel, A

    F. Erdel, A. Rademacher, R. Vlijm, J. T¨ unnermann, L. Frank, R. Weinmann, E. Schweigert, K. Yserentant, J. Hummert, C. Bauer, et al., Mouse heterochromatin adopts digital compaction states without showing hall- marks of HP1-driven liquid-liquid phase separation, Mol. Cell 78,...

    2020

  82. [90]

    Gabriele, H

    M. Gabriele, H. B. Brand˜ ao, S. Grosse-Holz, A. Jha, G. M. Dailey, C. Cattoglio, T.-H. S. Hsieh, L. Mirny, C. Zechner, and A. S. Hansen, Dynamics of CTCF- and cohesin-mediated chromatin looping revealed by live-cell imaging, Science 376, 496 (2022). 14 SUPPOR TING INFORMA TION

    2022

  83. [92]

    Linkages are formed between the chromatin and the lamina

    Computational Model The chromatin-lamina system is modeled with chromatin represented as a Rouse polymer chain and the nuclear lamina as an elastic, polymeric spherical shell. Linkages are formed between the chromatin and the lamina. The shell consists of 5000 monomers positio...

  84. [93]

    Simulation Results 2.1. Radius of gyration of chromatin polymer and radial density distribution of chromatin monomers For a chromatin polymer, the radius of gyration is defined as Rg = q 1 N PN i=1 (ri − rcom)2, where N = 5000 is the total number of monomers in the chain, ri i...

    2000

  85. [103]

    The system is consid- ered to be in steady state when these quantities no longer exhibit significant changes over time (Fig

    To evaluate the structural properties in the steady state, we measure the radius of gyration, Rg, and average radius of the lamina shell, ⟨Rs⟩. The system is consid- ered to be in steady state when these quantities no longer exhibit significant changes over time (Fig. S2). III...

    2000

Pith tools

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