Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Organization of fast and slow chromatin revealed by single-nucleosome dynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nucleosome motion partitions living chromatin into fast and slow fluid domains.

desk verdict A credible, well-scoped reanalysis of single-nucleosome tracking data that makes a new fast/slow domain claim, but the load-bearing bimodal distribution rests on an under-characterized deconvolution that the authors should pin down before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05851 v1 pith:GDWEZLX3 submitted 2019-08-16 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.dis-nnphysics.bio-phq-bio.SC

S. S. Ashwin , Tadasu Nozaki , Kazuhiro Maeshima , Masaki Sasai This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.dis-nnphysics.bio-phq-bio.SC
keywords chromatindynamicssingle-nucleosometrackingmeansquareddisplacementdistributioniterativedeconvolutionfastandslownucleosomesdynamicdomainspolymermodellive-cellimaging
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

The paper tries to establish that nucleosomes in living human cells are not dynamically uniform: their motions fall into two populations, fast and slow, whose correlated movement forms fluid-like domains. The bimodal distribution of single-nucleosome mean squared displacement at 0.5 s provides the classification, and displacement auto- and pair-correlations reveal dynamic domains with diameters of hundreds of nanometers. The inferred domain sizes overlap loop domains and topologically associating domains (TADs), suggesting that the structural units seen by Hi-C have a dynamic counterpart in living cells. Perturbation experiments and a minimal polymer model support the view that tethering and nucleosome-nucleosome interactions, rather than active driving, set which nucleosomes move slowly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is $P(M,t)$, the distribution of single-nucleosome mean squared displacement at lag time $t$, reconstructed from the self-part of the van Hove correlation function by an iterative deconvolution scheme. At $t=0.5$ s this distribution is bimodal, so the minimum $M^*$ between the peaks partitions nucleosomes into fast and slow classes. Everything downstream—the separate MSD curves, the auto-correlation functions $\eta_a(t)$, the density of vibrational modes $D_a(\omega)$, and the pair-correlation functions $g_{ab}(r)$ and $|\xi_{ab}(r)|$—is computed separately for the two classes, and the domain radii $R_c^{ab}$ are read off from the range of correlated displacement directions. The same $P(M)$ statistic is computed for a bead-spring polymer ring with two interaction regions, which lets the authors test whether compact versus open local geometry plus tethering can produce the observed bimodality.

What would settle it

Simulate trajectories with a known unimodal distribution of single-particle squared displacements, generate a noisy van Hove function from them, and run the same iterative deconvolution with the same initialization and stopping rule; if the reconstruction returns two peaks, the paper's fast/slow split is an artifact of the method. Alternatively, re-analyze the raw single-nucleosome trajectories with longer observation times, where each nucleosome's own MSD can be estimated without deconvolution, and check whether the bimodality survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that chromatin in living human cells organizes itself into fast dynamic domains (f-domains) and slow dynamic domains (s-domains), regions within which nucleosome displacements are correlated and which alternate in a mosaic-like spatial arrangement. Fast and slow nucleosomes are defined by the two peaks of the distribution $P(M,0.5\,\mathrm{s})$, the distribution of per-nucleosome mean squared displacement at 0.5 s, separated by a threshold $M^*$. The radial distribution functions show oscillations at characteristic distances $D_{ff}\approx 380$ nm and $D_{ss}\approx 600$ nm, and the displacement correlation functions have finite ranges $R_c^{ff}\approx R_c^{fs}\approx 190$ nm and $R_c^{ss}\approx 300$ nm, which the paper reads as domain radii. A finite value of the vibrational density of states at zero frequency marks the domains as fluid rather than solid. Perturbed cells (cohesin knockdown, histone hyperacetylation, crosslinking, and peripheral heterochromatin) shift the fast/slow balance in ways consistent with constraints from cohesin-mediated chain bundling and nuclear tethering, and a two-region polymer model reproduces the bimodal MSD pattern when one region is compact and the other open.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the two peaks in the reconstructed distribution of single-nucleosome squared displacements are a real feature of nucleosome motion and not an artifact of the iterative deconvolution used to build that distribution from noisy images.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the fast/slow classification is real, Hi-C domains and TADs are mirrored in living-cell dynamics: the f-domain radius of about 190 nm maps to roughly 50–300 kb (near the 185 kb median loop-domain size) and the s-domain radius of about 300 nm maps to roughly 150–500 kb (near clusters of loop domains or TADs).
  • Cohesin knockdown should increase the fast fraction while making slow nucleosomes slower, reflecting enhanced A/B compartmentalization; the observed box plots support this, and direct comparison with Hi-C contact maps would test it.
  • Histone hyperacetylation is predicted to dissolve s-domains and mix fast and slow populations, shortening the correlation length of $g_{fs}(r)$, whereas formaldehyde crosslinking freezes chromatin and sharply reduces the fast population.
  • A finite $D_a(0)$ predicts that chromatin at the 30-nm scale behaves as a fluid rather than a regular solid fiber, so structural models of chromatin must accommodate liquid-like dynamic domains.
  • Going beyond the paper, the dynamic domains need not be stable along the DNA sequence; if boundaries fluctuate from cell to cell, the same locus could be fast in one cell and slow in another, which would reconcile dynamic imaging with single-cell Hi-C variability.
  • A testable extension is to check whether RNA polymerase II clusters act as mobile tethers that locally create s-domains; the paper names transcription machinery as a possible factor but does not test it, so inhibiting transcription should shift the fast/slow balance toward fast if this tethering picture is right.
  • Another extension: if bimodality is driven by local compaction and tethering rather than sequence, perturbing nuclear tethering (for example by lamin knockdown) should shift $M^*$ and the domain radii in a quantitatively predictable way.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes single-nucleosome trajectories in living human cells to infer the distribution of single-nucleosome mean squared displacement (MSD), P(M,t), using a Richardson-Lucy deconvolution of the self-part of the van Hove correlation function. At t=0.5 s the inferred P(M) is bimodal, and the authors classify nucleosomes as fast or slow according to the threshold M* at the minimum between the two peaks. They then compute separate MSD curves, displacement auto-correlations, density of vibrational modes, and pair-correlation functions for fast and slow nucleosomes, and interpret the resulting spatial oscillations as evidence for fast dynamic domains (f-domains) and slow dynamic domains (s-domains) with diameters of roughly 380 nm and 600 nm, respectively. The paper further examines how these features change under cohesin knockdown, histone hyper-acetylation, formaldehyde crosslinking, and peripheral heterochromatin sampling, and introduces a minimal bead-spring polymer model of two loop domains whose simulated P(M) can show bimodality. The central claim is that chromatin in living cells is organized as a fluid mosaic of fast and slow dynamic domains whose sizes overlap loop-domain and TAD scales.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the paper provides a valuable and nontrivial advance: it turns single-nucleosome trajectory data into a spatial picture of dynamically distinct chromatin regions, connecting single-molecule dynamics to domain-scale chromatin organization. The use of the Richardson-Lucy deconvolution to extract MSD distributions from limited trajectories is creative, the collapse of P(M) across 10 cells is a genuine strength, and the perturbation experiments (cohesin KD, TSA, FA, periphery) give a useful, falsifiable handle on the underlying physical constraints. The polymer model, while qualitative, illustrates how tethering and compaction can produce fast/slow differences. However, the main conclusions rest on the stability of the deconvolved P(M) and on the statistical significance of pair-correlation peaks, and these load-bearing elements are not yet established in the manuscript. With additional validation and quantified uncertainty, this could be an important contribution to the chromatin-dynamics literature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods, Eq. 1 and Fig. 1B] The Richardson-Lucy deconvolution is not fully characterized. The Methods state the iteration formula and the constraints P>=0 and integral P=1, but they do not specify the number of iterations, the convergence criterion, the M-grid discretization, any regularization, or the sensitivity of the result to the initial exponential guess P1. Since M* is defined as the minimum of the deconvolved P(M,0.5 s), and since every fast/slow label and all downstream domain-size estimates inherit M*, the bimodality must be shown to be stable under reasonable variation of these RL parameters. The validation in Figs. S3-S5 is performed on simulated polymer systems; please add synthetic tests that mimic the experimental localization error, trajectory length, finite-nucleus boundary, and sampling density, and report explicitly how M* and the two peak positions vary across these conditions.
  2. [Results, Fig. 2] The demonstration that fast and slow nucleosomes have different average MSD is partly by construction, because the same threshold M* extracted from P(M,0.5 s) is used to define the two classes and then to compute their respective MSD curves in Fig. 2B. The authors should quantify the construction effect, for example by classifying nucleosomes using P(M) at one time and testing the classification at another time, by applying the threshold to independent trajectory subsets, or by comparing against a permutation/null-label control. Without such a check, the different exponents beta_f and beta_s do not independently establish that the two populations obey different physical mechanisms.
  3. [Eq. 3 and Fig. 4] The domain sizes D_ss=600 nm, D_ff=380 nm, and D_fs=(D_ff+D_ss)/2 are inferred from peaks in the radial distribution functions g_ab(r), but the text acknowledges that g_ab(r) is small for r<200 nm and that pair sampling is sparse. The manuscript gives no uncertainty estimates for the peak positions, no specified peak-detection rule, and no statistical test against a null model of uniformly distributed or independently classified nucleosomes. Because these peaks are the main quantitative evidence for the f-domain/s-domain mosaic picture, the authors should provide bootstrap confidence intervals for D_aa and D_fs, and a test that the oscillatory pattern is not an artifact of sparse sampling.
  4. [Fig. 6 and polymer model] The polymer model's bimodal P(M) is demonstrated for specific hand-picked interaction energies (e.g., epsilon_I=1.2 k_BT and epsilon_II=0.9 k_BT in Fig. 6D), and the model relies on a fixed reference point to represent tethering. The paper claims only qualitative consistency, but even this is weakly evidenced because no parameter scan, no comparison of the simulated P(M) to the experimental P(M), and no prediction of the perturbation responses (cohesin KD or TSA) are given. Please either add quantitative criteria for consistency or explicitly limit the claim to 'illustrative plausibility', which would remove the risk that the model is seen as a fit to the conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract/Significance Statement] The heading 'Significan Statement' contains a typo; it should read 'Significance Statement'.
  2. [Eq. 1 and Methods] The Gaussian basis is variously written as q(r,M), q(M,t), and q(r,M); please use a consistent notation throughout.
  3. [Eqs. 2-6] The definition of xi^{ab}(r) in Eq. 5 would be easier to follow if the numerator xi^{ab}_{vv}(r) were defined before Eq. 5 rather than in Eq. 6, and if the relation between xi^{ab}_{rr} and g^{ab}(r) were stated explicitly.
  4. [Results, pair correlations] The statement that 'the pair correlation functions of position, i.e., the radial distribution functions' are small for r<200 nm conflicts with the later discussion of peaks at 380-600 nm; please clarify whether the plotted g_ab(r) is normalized so that the small-r deficit is meaningful or is a sampling artifact.
  5. [Discussion] The sentence 'nucleosomes are driven primarily by thermal fluctuating motion' goes beyond the presented evidence, since the perturbations only show that constraints affect mobility; please soften this claim or add a supporting reference for the thermal-driving assumption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor definitional coupling in the fast/slow MSD comparison; the dynamic-domain conclusion rests on independent spatial and velocity correlations, so no significant circularity.

  1. self definitional [Results, 'Fast and slow fractions of nucleosomes', around Fig. 2A/B]
    "Thus, we define fast (slow) nucleosomes as ones showing Mi(0.5s)≥M∗ (Mi(0.5s)<M∗). ... With this characterization, we separately calculate the average MSD by ¯Ma = ∫ r² G_s^a(r,t)d²r for the fast (a=f) and slow (a=s) nucleosomes as shown in Fig. 2B. When we fit the MSD as ∼ t^β, the exponent is β=0.69–0.88 for the fast nucleosomes and β=0.44–0.47 for the slow nucleosomes. This suggests that fast and slow nucleosomes move in different physical mechanisms."

    The labels 'fast' and 'slow' are defined by thresholding the per-nucleosome MSD Mi(0.5s) at M*. Therefore the statement that the average MSD of the fast class exceeds that of the slow class at t=0.5s is true by construction, not by measurement. The paper presents this comparison as a characterization and supports 'different physical mechanisms' with the β exponents, which are not strictly forced by the threshold; however, the grouping and the first comparison are definitionally coupled. This is a minor step: the subsequent domain-size and correlation analyses use positions and velocities (Eqs. 2–6) that are not fixed by the M* threshold.

full rationale

The derivation chain is P(M,0.5s) → M* threshold → fast/slow labels → correlation functions (g_ab, ξ_ab) and domain sizes. The only step that reduces by construction is the comparison of average MSD of fast vs slow classes at t=0.5s, because the classes were defined by thresholding Mi(0.5s); that part is a restatement of the labeling. The central claim of dynamically correlated f- and s-domains is not forced: Dff, Dss, Rc and the mosaic peaks are obtained from position-displacement pair correlations (Eqs. 2–6) using the labeled nucleosomes' coordinates, not from the threshold M*. The collapse by M/M* is a descriptive scaling and, while M* is internal, the similarity beyond the forced valley is empirical. The experimental trajectories come from Nozaki et al. (a self-citation), but they are raw measurements, not a theorem or fitted result, and the polymer model is an independent simulation. The RL inversion's reliability is a correctness/risk issue, not circularity. Hence score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central data analysis rests on the Gaussian-mixture deconvolution and 2D projection assumptions. The polymer model adds several hand-tuned parameters and a fixed-tethering assumption, so it can show consistency but not independently confirm the dynamic-domain picture. The fast/slow categories and correlation length estimates are partly self-defined by thresholds chosen from the same data.

free parameters (5)
  • M* threshold per cell = per-cell values not tabulated (minimum of P(M, 0.5 s))
    Defines fast versus slow nucleosomes; chosen from the same deconvolved distribution being classified, so any artifact in P(M) propagates into the categorization.
  • RL iteration count and initial guess M0 = not stated in main text
    The deconvolution result can depend on these choices; validation on simulated polymers does not guarantee stability for live-cell data.
  • correlation length cutoff = 0.2 on |xi(r)|
    Rc^ab is defined as |xi^ab(Rc^ab)| = 0.2; this arbitrary threshold sets the inferred domain radii.
  • polymer model interaction energies epsilon_I and epsilon_II = scanned values: 0.6, 0.9, 1.0, 1.2 (in kBT)
    Hand-selected to produce compact/open regions and bimodal P(M); no independent measurements fix these values.
  • polymer bead size and number of beads = 300 beads, r0 unit length
    The chain length and r0 are chosen for convenience; the correspondence between beads and genomic length is approximate (1 bead ~ 1 kb).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Single-nucleosome displacements for each MSD value follow a Gaussian q(r,M), so Gs(r,t) = int P(M,t) q(r,M) dM (Eq. 1).
    This Gaussian mixture representation underlies the RL deconvolution and may fail if displacement distributions are strongly non-Gaussian.
  • domain assumption Projected 2D trajectories in a ~200-250 nm nuclear slice fully characterize nucleosome motion.
    The imaging plane is thin, so out-of-plane motion is lost; MSD and correlation lengths are 2D projections, not 3D values.
  • domain assumption The displacement vector vi(t) with delta t = 0.05 s can be treated as a velocity, and its Fourier transform gives a vibrational density of states Da(omega).
    This is an approximate analogy; finite Da(0) is interpreted as fluidity, but the relation to true glassy or liquid behavior is not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper A ring polymer with two regions, Lennard-Jones-like interactions, and a fixed reference point represents chromatin loop domains with cohesin tethering.
    The model parameters are introduced for this paper and are not measured from cells; it provides a consistency argument rather than a quantitative prediction.
invented entities (2)
  • f-domains (fast dynamic domains)
    purpose: Explain correlated fast nucleosome motion within ~190 nm correlation radii
    Inferred from the same single-nucleosome tracking data; sizes are compared to FISH/Hi-C estimates in the literature but no independent experimental handle is provided.
  • s-domains (slow dynamic domains)
    purpose: Explain correlated slow nucleosome motion within ~300 nm correlation radii
    Inferred from the same data; no independent falsifiable prediction beyond the correlations used to define them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Organization of fast and slow chromatin revealed by single-nucleosome dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GDWEZLX3

@misc{pith2026190805851,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Organization of fast and slow chromatin revealed by single-nucleosome dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GDWEZLX3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05851}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding chromatin organization and dynamics is important since they crucially affect DNA functions. In this study, we investigate chromatin dynamics by statistically analyzing single-nucleosome movement in living human cells. Bi-modal nature of the mean squared displacement distribution of nucleosomes allows for a natural categorization of the nucleosomes as fast and slow. Analyses of the nucleosome-nucleosome correlation functions within these categories along with the density of vibrational modes show that the nucleosomes form dynamically correlated fluid regions, i.e., dynamic domains of fast and slow nucleosomes. Perturbed nucleosome dynamics by global histone acetylation or cohesin inactivation indicate that nucleosome-nucleosome interactions along with tethering of chromatin chains organize nucleosomes into fast and slow dynamic domains. A simple polymer model is introduced, which shows the consistency of this dynamic domain picture. Statistical analyses of single-nucleosome movement provide rich information on how chromatin is dynamically organized in a fluid manner in living cells.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05851 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mean square displacement (MSD) of nucleosome movement observed in live-cell imaging of an example cell. (A) The MSD M¯ averaged over nucleosomes is plotted as a function of time. In insets, the self-part of the van Hove correlation function 2πrGs(r,t) reproduced from P(M,t) using Eq. 1 (black) is superposed on the one obtained from the observed trajectories of single nucleosomes (red) at t = 0.1 s, t = 0.25 s and t … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fast and slow nucleosomes. (A) The distribution of MSD of single nucleosomes, P(M) = P(M,0.5 s), is plotted for 10 cell samples as functions of M/M∗ , where M∗ is M at the minimum between two peaks of P(M). (B) The MSD averaged over fast nucleosomes, M¯ f (black), and the MSD averaged over slow nucleosomes, M¯ s (red), are shown for 10 individual cells (dashed lines) and the average over 10 cells (real lines). on th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Auto-correlation functions of displacement of single nucleosomes and the density of vibrational modes. (A) The auto-correlation function of single nucleosome displacement, η a (t), is plotted as a function of t. Bars show the standard errors among 10 cells. (B) The density of vibrational modes, D a (ω), is plotted as a function of frequency ω for 10 cells. In A and B, curves are plotted for fast (a = f , black) and … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pair-correlation functions of position and displacement of single nucleosomes. (A–C) Pair-correlations of position, i.e., the radial distribution functions, g ab(r), of single nucleosomes. Triangles show the distances, D ss and 2D ss (A), D f f and 2D f f (B), and D f …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effects of perturbations on cells and effects of focusing on heterochromatin. (A–C) Features of the effects on the distribution of mean square displacement (MSD), P(M,t) at t = 0.5 s, of single nucleosomes; (A) the ratio of the number of fast nucleosomes to the number …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A polymer model of looped domains. (A) Two consecutive looped domains are represented by Region I and Region II in a model ring. The cohesin binding is represented by thick bars. (B–E) Distribution of mean square displacement, P(M), of beads in a polymer model. Connect…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bickmore, W. A. The spatial organization of the human genome. Ann Rev Genom Human Gene 14, 67–84 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    C., Schneider, K., Martin, R

    Cardoso, M. C., Schneider, K., Martin, R. M. & Leonhardt, H. Structure, function and dynamics of nuclear subcompart- ments. Curr Opin Cell Biol 24, 79–85 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    & Spector, D

    H¨ubner, M., Eckersley-Maslin, M. & Spector, D. Chromatin organization and transcriptional regulation. Curr Opin Gen Dev 23, 89–95 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    & Sasai, M

    Maeshima, K., Ide, S., Hibino, K. & Sasai, M. Liquid-like behavior of chromatin. Curr Opin Gen Dev 37, 36–45 (2016). 8/11

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    & Heard, E

    Dekker, J. & Heard, E. Structural and functional diversity of topologically associating domains.FEBS Lett 589, 2877–2884 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Rao, S. S. et al. A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell 159, 1665–1680 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Nagano, T. et al. Cell-cycle dynamics of chromosomal organization at single-cell resolution. Nature 547, 61–67 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    & Xie, X

    Tan, L., Xing, D., Chang, C.-H., Li, H. & Xie, X. S. Three-dimensional genome structures of single diploid human cells. Science 361, 924–928 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Bintu, B. et al. Super-resolution chromatin tracing reveals domains and cooperative interactions in single cells. Science 362, eaau1783 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Finn, E. H. et al. Extensive heterogeneity and intrinsic variation in spatial genome organization. Cell 176, 1502–1515 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Marshall, W. F.et al. Interphase chromosomes undergo constrained diffusional motion in living cells.Curr Biol 7, 930–939 (1997)

    1997

  4. [12]

    & Gasser, S

    Heun, P., Laroche, T., Shimada, K., Furrer, P. & Gasser, S. M. Chromosome dynamics in the yeast interphase nucleus. Science 294, 2181–2186 (2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    R., Boyle, S., Perry, P

    Chubb, J. R., Boyle, S., Perry, P. & Bickmore, W. A. Chromatin motion is constrained by association with nuclear compartments in human cells. Curr Biol 12, 439–445 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    Levi, V ., Ruan, Q., Plutz, M., Belmont, A. S. & Gratton, E. Chromatin dynamics in interphase cells revealed by tracking in a two-photon excitation microscope. Biophys J 89, 4275–4285 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Hajjoul, H. et al. High-throughput chromatin motion tracking in living yeast reveals the flexibility of the fiber throughout the genome. Genome Res 23, 1829–1838 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Germier, T. et al. Real-time imaging of a single gene reveals transcription-initiated local confinement. Biophys J 113, 1383–1394 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Chen, B. et al. Dynamic imaging of genomic loci in living human cells by an optimized CRISPR/Cas system. Cell 155, 1479–1491 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Gu, B. et al. Transcription-coupled changes in nuclear mobility of mammalian cis-regulatory elements. Science 359, 1050–1055 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Ma, H. et al. Cell cycle- and genomic distance-dependent dynamics of a discrete chromosomal region. J Cell Biol 218, 1467–1477 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Hihara, S. et al. Local nucleosome dynamics facilitate chromatin accessibility in living mammalian cells. Cell Rep 2, 1645–1656 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Nozaki, T. et al. Flexible and dynamic nucleosome fiber in living mammalian cells. Nucleus 4, 349–356 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Nozaki, T. et al. Dynamic organization of chromatin domains revealed by super-resolution live-cell imaging. Mol Cell 67, 282–293 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Nagashima, R. et al. Single nucleosome imaging reveals loose genome chromatin networks via active RNA polymerase II. J Cell Biol 218, 1511–1530 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    A., Wolynes, P

    Di Pierro, M., Potoyan, D. A., Wolynes, P. G. & Onuchic, J. N. Anomalous diffusion, spatial coherence, and viscoelasticity from the energy landscape of human chromosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115, 7753–7758 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    & Thirumalai, D

    Shi, G., Liu, L., Hyeon, C. & Thirumalai, D. Interphase human chromosome exhibits out of equilibrium glassy dynamics. Nat Commun 9, 3161 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    & Togashi, Y

    Shinkai, S., Nozaki, T., Maeshima, K. & Togashi, Y . Dynamic nucleosome movement provides structural information of topological chromatin domains in living human cells. PLoS Comput Biol 12, e1005136 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Bronstein, I. et al. Transient anomalous diffusion of telomeres in the nucleus of mammalian cells. Phys Rev Lett 103, 018102 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Zidovska, A., Weitz, D. A. & Mitchison, T. J. Micron-scale coherence in interphase chromatin dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110, 15555–15560 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    A., Barth, R

    Shaban, H. A., Barth, R. & Bystricky, K. Nanoscale mapping of DNA dynamics in live human cells. bioRxiv doi:10.1101/405969 (2019). 9/11

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Richardson, W. H. Bayesian-based iterative method of image restoration. J Optical Soc America 62, 55–59 (1972)

    1972

  23. [31]

    Lucy, L. B. An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions. Astronomical J 79, 745–754 (1974)

    1974

  24. [32]

    Dey, N. et al. Richardson-Lucy algorithm with total variation regularization for 3D confocal microscope deconvolution. Microsc Res Tech69, 260–266 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    & Peterson, P

    Laasmaa, M., Vendelin, M. & Peterson, P. Application of regularized Richardson-Lucy algorithm for deconvolution of confocal microscopy images. J Microscopy 243, 124–140 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Wang, B., Kuo, J., Bae, S. C. & Granick, S. When Brownian diffusion is not Gaussian. Nat Mater 11, 481–485 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    & Karmakar, S

    Sengupta, S. & Karmakar, S. Distribution of diffusion constants and Stokes-Einstein violation in supercooled liquids. J Chem Phys 140, 224505 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    P., Das, R

    Bhowmik, B. P., Das, R. & Karmakar, S. Understanding Stokes-Einstein relation in supercooled liquids using random pinning. J Stat Mech 2016, 074003 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    P., Tah, I

    Bhowmik, B. P., Tah, I. & Karmakar, S. . non-Gaussianity of van Hove function and dynamic heterogeneity length scale. Phys Rev E 98, 022122 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    & Goddard, W

    Lin, S.-T., Blanco, M. & Goddard, W. A. The two-phase model for calculating thermodynamic properties of liquids from molecular dynamics: Validation for the phase diagram of Lennard-Jones fluids. J Chem Phys 119, 11792 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    Finch, J. T. & Klug, A. Solenoidal model for superstructure in chromatin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 73, 1897–1901 (1976)

    1976

  32. [40]

    & Babokhov, M

    Maeshima, K., Ide, S. & Babokhov, M. Dynamic chromatin organization without the 30-nm fiber. Curr Opin Cell Biol 58, 95–104 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Boettiger, A. N. et al. Super-resolution imaging reveals distinct chromatin folding for different epigenetic states. Nature 529, 418–422 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    A., Barth, R

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

    2018

  35. [43]

    & Haering, C

    Nasmyth, K. & Haering, C. H. The structure and function of SMC and kleisin complexes. Annu Rev Biochem 74, 595–648 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    & Hirano, T

    Shintomi, K. & Hirano, T. Sister chromatid resolution: a cohesion releasing network and beyond. Chromosoma 119, 459–467 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    M., Wachsmuth, M., T´oth, K

    G¨orisch, S. M., Wachsmuth, M., T´oth, K. F., Lichter, P. & Rippe, K. Histone acetylation increases chromatin accessibility. J Cell Sci 118, 5825–5834 (2005)

    2005

  38. [46]

    & Belmont, A

    van Steensel, B. & Belmont, A. S. Lamina-associated domains: Links with chromosome architecture, heterochromatin, and gene repression. Cell 169, 780–791 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    & Bickmore, W

    Lemaˆıtre, C. & Bickmore, W. A. Chromatin at the nuclear periphery and the regulation of genome functions.Histochem Cell Biol 144, 111–122 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    Two independent modes of chromatin organization revealed by cohesin removal

    Schwarzer, W.et al. Two independent modes of chromatin organization revealed by cohesin removal. Nature 551, 51–56 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Rao, S. S. P. et al. Cohesin loss eliminates all loop domains. Cell 171, 305–320 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    & Cook, P

    Feuerborn, A. & Cook, P. R. Why the activity of a gene depends on its neighbors. Trends Genet 31, 483–490 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Lu, H. et al. Phase-separation mechanism for C-terminal hyperphosphorylation of RNA polymerase II. Nature 558, 318–323 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Cho, W. K. et al. Mediator and RNA polymerase II clusters associate in transcription-dependent condensates. Science 361, 412–415 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Boija, A. et al. Transcription factors activate genes through the phase-separation capacity of their activation domains. Cell 175, 1842–1855 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Sabari, B. R. et al. Coactivator condensation at super-enhancers links phase separation and gene control. Science 361, eaar3958 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    V ., Chen, Q

    Zinchenko, A., Berezhnoy, N. V ., Chen, Q. & Nordenski¨old, L. Compaction of single-molecule megabase-long chromatin under the influence of macromolecular crowding. Biophys J 114, 2326–2335 (2018). 10/11

    2018

  48. [56]

    & Wolynes, P

    Zhang, B. & Wolynes, P. G. Topology, structures, and energy landscapes of human chromosomes.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112, 6062–6067 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    & Sartori Blanc, N

    Dubochet, J. & Sartori Blanc, N. The cell in absence of aggregation artifacts. Micron 32, 91–99 (2001). Author contributions statement Author contributions: SSA, TN, KM and MS designed research and wrote the manuscript. SSA developed methods and performed research, and SSA and...

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.