Modelling transcriptional silencing and its coupling to 3D genome organisation

Davide Marenduzzo; Giada Forte; Giuseppe Negro; Massimiliano Semeraro

REVIEW 2 major objections 9 minor 51 references

Modelling transcriptional silencing and its coupling to 3D genome organisation

T0 review · 2 major / 9 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 This paper claims that all three silencing feedback mechanisms produce a silencing transition in average transcriptional activity, but the transition's measurable signatures—cluster composition, gene noise, and correlation networks—depend…

desk verdict Solid qualitative extension of the BIPS polymer model to silencing; the activity proxy is the main caveat, but the mechanism-dependent signatures are plausible. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02150 v2 pith:UPPVR4C5 submitted 2025-07-02 physics.bio-ph

Massimiliano Semeraro , Giuseppe Negro , Davide Marenduzzo , Giada Forte This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.bio-ph

keywords genesilencing3Dgenomeorganisationtranscriptionfactorschromatinpolymertranscriptionalnoisefactoriesbridging-inducedphaseseparationcoarse-grainedsimulations

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 uses 3D polymer simulations to ask whether the way a repressor silences a gene changes how silencing appears in measurements. It compares three feedback schemes: repressors that stick to the genes they silence (positive feedback), repressors that flee after silencing (negative feedback), and repressors that linger nearby (neutral feedback). The paper finds that all three mechanisms shut down average transcriptional activity at a similar threshold, but the details differ: the composition of transcription-factor clusters, the variability of single-gene activity, and the network of correlations between genes all depend on which feedback is at work. A sympathetic reader would care because these are measurable quantities, so the model offers a way to distinguish silencing mechanisms from experiments.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a coarse-grained polymer model of a 1000-bead chromatin fibre carrying 39 transcription units, immersed in a bath of active and repressive transcription factors that switch between ON and OFF states. The active TFs are strongly attracted to active TUs and weakly to other chromatin, while the repressive TFs' interaction rules define the three feedback mechanisms ('color and stick', 'color and flee', 'color and linger'). Multivalency of the TFs makes clusters form through bridging-induced phase separation (BIPS), and the transcription activity of a TU is read out as the fraction of time it is bound by an active TF.

What would settle it

A combined measurement of transcription-factor binding occupancy and actual mRNA output in single cells, across a repressor titration, would settle it: if the fraction of time a promoter is bound by an active TF stops tracking its transcription rate, the central observable used to define the silencing transition is not a valid proxy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that while all three silencing feedback mechanisms produce a silencing transition in average transcriptional activity, the signatures of that transition depend on the choice of feedback. In the 'color and stick' (positive feedback) case, repressors bind active transcription units, repress them, and keep high affinity for repressed units, so mixed active/repressive clusters transform into repressor-only clusters and noise peaks at the transition. In 'color and flee' (negative feedback), repressors bind only active units and detach after silencing, so the transition generates fewer but larger active-TF clusters, and gene noise stays high even after silencing. In 'color and linger' (neutral feedback), repressors are weakly attracted everywhere, producing mixed clusters and a shallower transition, with positive correlations at long range after silencing. The paper argues that these differences in cluster morphology, noise, and correlation networks are direct consequences of the feedback rule and can be read off from measurable quantities.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis assumes that how often a transcription unit is bound by an active transcription factor is a faithful measure of how much it is actually transcribed; if binding time and RNA output diverge, the silencing transition and its fingerprints would not reflect real gene activity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the paper is right, the silencing transition is a generic property of TF competition, but its location in observable space differs: for positive and neutral feedback the maximum of transcriptional noise marks the transition, while for negative feedback noise stays high after silencing.
Cluster composition becomes a diagnostic: repressor-only cores after the transition indicate positive feedback, fewer-but-larger active clusters indicate negative feedback, and persistent mixed clusters indicate neutral feedback.
Correlation networks distinguish mechanisms after silencing: long-range positive correlations between TUs appear with positive feedback, while negative feedback keeps long-range negative correlations.
Because the model reads transcription from active-TF binding occupancy, its predictions can be compared directly with data from GRO-seq, RNA-seq, and live-cell imaging of TF binding.

Reading between the lines

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

The same three feedback rules could be implemented in models with loop extrusion or explicit histone marks, and the model would predict that these additional mechanisms shift the critical silencing probability and the noise peak.
The persistently high noise in the 'color and flee' mechanism implies that cell populations using such silencing may show more heterogeneous gene expression, which could affect differentiation decisions—a consequence the paper motivates but does not state outright.
The correlation networks could be compared directly with single-cell co-expression data; if such data show no difference between cell types with different silencing pathways, that would challenge the classification.
A testable extension is to measure boomerang plots for the same gene silenced by promoter occlusion versus histone deacetylation in the same cell line; the model predicts different noise curves for the two mechanisms.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — quick take on arXiv:2507.02150. This is a legitimate next step in the BIPS polymer simulation program. The new ingredient is the inclusion of repressive TFs and reversible silencing marks, with three well-defined feedback schemes: positive ("color and stick"), negative ("color and flee"), and neutral ("color and linger"). The main result—that all three produce a silencing transition but with mechanism-dependent signatures in TF cluster composition, expression noise, and correlation networks—is plausible and internally consistent with the simulations as described. I buy it as a qualitative prediction.

What's genuinely good: the three feedback schemes are clearly delineated and tied to biological scenarios (bacterial repression, coREST-like erasers, weak lingering corepressors). The correlation-network analysis is a nice way to summarize the spatial patterns. The simulations use 100 independent runs per parameter set, which gives reasonable statistics for the averages.

Where it's soft: the activity proxy. Everything downstream of Fig. 3 rests on equating transcriptional activity with the fraction of time a TU is bound by an active TF. That's an assumption inherited from Ref. 17, and the paper does not test it against an alternative proxy (e.g., productive Pol II loading). The authors themselves note that GRO-seq/RNA-seq comparisons are future work, but as it stands, the "measurable fingerprints" are occupancy fingerprints, not directly transcription. This is a real limitation, but not a fatal one—the qualitative logic of the paper doesn't collapse if the mapping is roughly monotonic in the ps range studied. Still, it deserves a sentence or two in the discussion, and ideally a robustness check with a different activity readout.

Two smaller issues: Fig. 3(A) shows the transition curves without error bars—easy to fix. And the ESI, which contains model parameters and sampling details, is referenced as a placeholder with DOI "xxx". Referees need that material; the paper as submitted is not fully reproducible without it. No code or data are provided either, which is consistent with the field's norms but still worth a comment.

Overall, this is a solid simulation study that doesn't overclaim. The stress-test concern about the occupancy proxy is the main thing to probe in review, but I don't think it sinks the central claim. That claim is about how different silencing mechanisms leave different occupancy/cluster signatures; if the proxy is imperfect, the specific fingerprints may shift, but the qualitative distinction between mechanisms is likely robust.

Who should read it: computational biophysicists working on genome organization and anyone interested in how silencing might couple to 3D structure. I'd give it a serious referee—conditional acceptance after minor revisions, mainly error bars, complete ESI, and a more explicit discussion of the proxy limitation.

Recommendation: send to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 9 minor

Summary. The paper presents a coarse-grained 3D polymer model of a chromatin fibre with active and repressive transcription factors (TFs). Three silencing feedback schemes are compared: positive ('color and stick'), negative ('color and flee'), and neutral ('color and linger'). The central claim is that all three mechanisms produce a silencing transition in average transcriptional activity as the silencing probability p_s increases, but the signatures of this transition—TF cluster morphology, single-TU transcriptional noise, and the network of activity correlations between TUs—depend on the feedback mechanism. The model is simulated with 100 independent runs per parameter set, and the paper emphasizes that these are emergent outputs rather than fitted quantities.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful conceptual framework for how different molecular mechanisms of repression could be distinguished by experimentally accessible observables: cluster composition, gene expression noise, and correlation networks. The systematic comparison of three feedback schemes is a strength, as is the use of multiple independent simulations. However, the significance is contingent on the validity of the occupancy-based proxy for transcription and on the availability of the model details currently deferred to a placeholder ESI. The predictions are falsifiable in principle with live-cell imaging or RNA-seq/GRO-seq data, as the authors note.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.2] The transcription activity of a TU is defined as the fraction of time it is bound by an active TF, citing Ref. 17. All downstream observables supporting the central claim—<a> in Fig. 3A, the boomerang noise σ_TU in Fig. 3C, and the correlation networks in Fig. 4—are computed from this single binary occupancy variable. No independent transcription output (mRNA production, Pol II loading, elongation) is simulated. The biological interpretation of the results as 'transcriptional silencing' therefore rests on the assumption that occupancy is a monotone proxy for actual transcription. This assumption is not validated in the paper, and it is not guaranteed by the model. The authors should either (a) clearly restrict the claims to 'TF-occupancy dynamics' and discuss the limitations, (b) provide experimental evidence for the monotonicity of the mapping in the relevant p_s range, or (c) include a simple stochastic transcription model (e.g., transcription occurs at a rate when an active TF is bound) and verify that the qualitative signatures are robust. As it stands, the central claim overreaches the simulated quantity.
[Section 2 and Ref. 44] The main text states (Section 2, last paragraph) that 'More details about the model, its implementation and the sampling of observables are reported in Ref.44.' Ref. 44 is listed as 'Electronic Supplementary Information' with no DOI, and the footnote on page 1 says 'See DOI: xxx'. This means the essential simulation parameters—interaction potential strengths and cutoffs, the values of α_on and α_off, the range of p_s values, τ_R, the simulation box size and boundary conditions, the equilibration and production run lengths, and the cluster-detection definition—are not available to the reader. For a computational study whose conclusions depend on these details, this is a reproducibility-blocking issue. The ESI must be included in the review version with a valid DOI, and the key parameters should at least be summarized in a table in the main text.

minor comments (9)

[Fig. 3(A)] The average activity curves in Fig. 3(A) are shown without error bars or confidence intervals, despite being computed from 100 independent simulations. Please add standard errors or shaded bands to assess the sharpness and statistical significance of the silencing transition.
[Fig. 3(A)] No control without repressive TFs is shown; a no-repressor baseline in Fig. 3(A) would help separate the effect of p_s from the intrinsic clustering of active TFs.
[Fig. 4] The caption of Fig. 4 states a correlation threshold of 0.25 corresponds to a p-value ~2×10^-2, but no multiple-testing correction is applied for the many pairwise correlations; please clarify whether the reported p-value is corrected.
[Section 3.3] The sentence 'We show in Ref.44 that most of the interactions (edges) are statistically significant' is unverifiable because Ref. 44 is a placeholder; please move this analysis to the main text or provide the ESI.
[Section 3.1] The definition of a TF cluster (used in Fig. 2C) is not given in the main text; please state the clustering criterion (e.g., distance cutoff, number of contacts) or refer to a specific section of the ESI.
[Section 2] The random placement of the 39 TUs along the 1000-bead chain is mentioned in Section 2; please clarify whether the identical sequence is used in all simulations and whether the results are robust to different random placements.
[Section 2] The simulation box dimensions and boundary conditions are not specified; the statement that the box is 'large enough to ensure that the system is dilute' should be quantified.
[Section 3.2] The term 'silencing transition' is used without a formal definition or finite-size scaling analysis; if this is a crossover rather than a true phase transition, using 'transition' may be misleading. Consider adding an order parameter or stating the crossover criterion.
[Fig. 3(B)] In the kymograph panels of Fig. 3(B), the meaning of black, yellow, and red pixels is given in the text but not in the figure caption; please add a legend to the caption for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the silencing transition, cluster morphologies, noise, and correlation networks are emergent outputs of a forward simulation; the transcription-activity proxy is an explicit modeling assumption, not a fitted input or a result forced by self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulation. Given explicitly stated interaction rules for three silencing feedback mechanisms, the model produces cluster sizes and compositions, an activity-like observable, single-TU variability, and correlation networks. No parameter is fitted to experimental data, and the silencing transition emerges as a function of the control parameter p_s rather than being imposed. The only potentially concerning step is Section 3.2, where 'the transcription activity of an active TU can be predicted by measuring the fraction of time the TU is bound by an active TF,' citing Ref. 17. This is an explicit modeling proxy, not a hidden reduction: the simulated quantity is consistently defined as binding occupancy, and all downstream observables are functions of that defined quantity. A proxy choice is a validity limitation about biological interpretability, not circularity, because the model does not claim to independently measure transcription and then derive occupancy from it; nor does it fit occupancy to transcription data and then 'predict' the same data. The self-citations (Refs. 17, 42, 47) supply precedent for the polymer setup and the noise metric, but the central claim that feedback mechanism shapes transition signatures is not justified by an unverified uniqueness theorem or by a fitted parameter; it rests on the simulation outputs themselves. The differences between feedback schemes are partly built into their definitions, but the specific morphologies, transition locations, noise profiles, and correlation-network patterns are emergent and not equal to the input rules by construction. Therefore no circular step meets the required evidentiary standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model inherits a large number of parameters from earlier coarse-grained chromatin work; none are fit to new experimental data. The central assumptions are the polymer representation, the binding-occupancy proxy for transcription, BIPS as the clustering mechanism, the biological mapping of the three feedback schemes, and the treatment of independent simulations as individual cells. These are reasonable domain assumptions but are not independently verified here.

free parameters (5)

silencing probability p_s = scanned from 10^-4 to 9 x 10^-1
Controls the rate at which bound repressors repress TUs; the silencing transition is identified as a function of p_s, so the location and shape of the transition are conditional on this hand-chosen control parameter.
TF switching probability p_switch and rates alpha_on = alpha_off = not specified in main text (values in ESI)
Sets how often active and repressive TFs toggle ON/OFF; directly influences occupancy fluctuations that define transcription noise.
strong/weak TF-chromatin interaction affinities = not specified in main text (values in ESI)
These affinities encode the color and stick, color and flee, and color and linger mechanisms and determine cluster composition, so the structural signatures are tuned by them.
numbers of active and repressive TFs = 40 active, 40 repressive, 20 of each initially ON
Chosen in line with Refs 17 and 42; finite TF count drives competition and correlation network structure, so results depend on this choice.
repression recovery time tau_R = not specified in main text (values in ESI)
Sets how long a TU stays repressed; in the negative feedback model the noise persists after transition partly because repressed TUs revert easily, so tau_R is load-bearing.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Chromatin can be coarse-grained as a semiflexible polymer of 1000 beads, each representing 1-3 kb, with a persistence length set by a Kratky-Porod potential.
Baseline polymer representation inherited from Refs 17, 42, and 43; central to all 3D structure results.
domain assumption Transcriptional activity of a TU is equal to the fraction of time it is bound by an active TF.
Stated in Section 3.2 with citation to Ref 17; if occupancy does not track transcription output, the silencing transition and noise signatures are artifacts of the proxy.
domain assumption Multivalent TF-chromatin interactions produce clusters via bridging-induced phase separation (BIPS).
Invoked in Section 3.1 with Refs 45 and 46; all cluster morphology claims depend on BIPS being the operative mechanism.
ad hoc to paper The three feedback schemes (color and stick, color and flee, color and linger) capture the essential biology of bacterial and eukaryotic silencing pathways.
Definitions in Section 2 and Fig. 1; the biological mapping is plausible but not derived or validated against data.
domain assumption Each independent simulation represents a single cell, so averaging over runs gives population-level expression noise.
Stated in Section 3.2; the boomerang plots depend on this cell-population equivalence.
domain assumption The single random placement of 39 TUs on the 1000-bead chain used in Refs 17 and 42 is representative for correlation network conclusions.
Section 2 adopts the same chain as Refs 17 and 42; no averaging over TU arrangements is reported, so short- and long-range correlation patterns could depend on this placement.

invented entities (2)

Repressive transcription factor species with ON/OFF states independent evidence
purpose: Models eukaryotic and bacterial repressor complexes that silence transcription units.
Represents known biology (e.g., lac repressor, coREST/HDAC complexes, Refs 21-29), not a new physical entity, but is a new model component relative to Refs 17 and 42.
Repressed transcription unit state with reversible dynamic mark independent evidence
purpose: Implements epigenetic silencing and recovery via the silencing probability p_s and recovery time tau_R.
Epigenetic marks like H3K27me3 are experimentally documented; the dynamic deposition and removal is a modeling device with no direct calibration to mark kinetics.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modelling transcriptional silencing and its coupling to 3D genome organisation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UPPVR4C5

@misc{pith2026250702150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modelling transcriptional silencing and its coupling to 3D genome organisation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UPPVR4C5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02150}
}

read the original abstract

Timely up- or down-regulation of gene expression is crucial for cellular differentiation and function. While gene upregulation via transcriptional activators has been extensively investigated, gene silencing remains understudied, especially by modelling. This study employs 3D simulations to study the biophysics of a chromatin fibre where active transcription factors compete with repressors for binding to transcription units along the fibre, and investigates how different silencing mechanisms affect 3D chromatin structure and transcription. We examine three gene silencing feedback mechanisms: positive, negative, and neutral. These mechanisms capture different silencing pathways observed or proposed in biological systems. Our findings reveal that, whilst all mechanisms lead to a silencing transition, the signatures of this transition depend on the choice of the feedback. The latter controls the morphologies of the emergent 3D transcription factor clusters, the average gene expression and its variability, or gene noise, and the network of ensuing correlations between activities of neighbouring transcription units. These results provide insights into the biophysics of gene silencing, as well as into the interplay between transcriptional regulation and 3D genome organisation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

[1]

B. Alberts. Molecular biology of the cell . Garland science, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

J. M. W. Slack and L. Dale. Essential developmental biology . John Wiley & Sons, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Dupont and S

S. Dupont and S. A. Wickstr \"o m. Mechanical regulation of chromatin and transcription. Nat. Rev. Genet. , 23(10):624--643, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

Grosveld, J

F. Grosveld, J. van Staalduinen, and R. Stadhouders. Transcriptional regulation by (super) enhancers: from discovery to mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. , 22(1):127--146, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Pombo and N

A. Pombo and N. Dillon. Three-dimensional genome architecture: players and mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. , 16(4):245--257, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

M Ibrahim and S

D. M Ibrahim and S. Mundlos. The role of 3d chromatin domains in gene regulation: a multi-facetted view on genome organization. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. , 61:1--8, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

M Du, S. H. Stitzinger, J.-H. Spille, W.-K. Cho, C. Lee, M. Hijaz, A. Quintana, and I. I Ciss \'e . Direct observation of a condensate effect on super-enhancer controlled gene bursting. Cell , 187(2):331--344, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

S imkov \'a , Amanda S

H. S imkov \'a , Amanda S. C \^a mara, and M. Mascher. Hi-c techniques: from genome assemblies to transcription regulation. J. Exp. Bot. , page erae085, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 51 references

[9]

H. S. Long, S. Greenaway, G. Powell, A.-M. Mallon, C. M. Lindgren, and M. M. Simon. Making sense of the linear genome, gene function and tads. Epig. Chrom. , 15(1):4, 2022

2022
[10]

J. Liu, M. Ali, and Q. Zhou. Establishment and evolution of heterochromatin. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci , 1476(1):59--77, 2020

2020
[11]

M Hildebrand and J

E. M Hildebrand and J. Dekker. Mechanisms and functions of chromosome compartmentalization. Trends Biochem. Sci. , 45(5):385--396, 2020

2020
[12]

Panigrahi and B

A. Panigrahi and B. W. O’Malley. Mechanisms of enhancer action: the known and the unknown. Gen. biol. , 22(1):108, 2021

2021
[13]

B. Sahu, T. Hartonen, P. Pihlajamaa, B. Wei, K. Dave, F. Zhu, E. Kaasinen, K. Lidschreiber, M. Lidschreiber, C. O Daub, et al. Sequence determinants of human gene regulatory elements. Nat. Genet. , 54(3):283--294, 2022

2022
[14]

Marguerat and J

S. Marguerat and J. B \"a hler. Rna-seq: from technology to biology. Cell. Molec. Life Sci. , 67:569--579, 2010

2010
[15]

o rn Schwalb, Margaux Michel, Benedikt Zacher, Katja Fr \

Bj \"o rn Schwalb, Margaux Michel, Benedikt Zacher, Katja Fr \"u hauf, Carina Demel, Achim Tresch, Julien Gagneur, and Patrick Cramer. Tt-seq maps the human transient transcriptome. Science , 352(6290):1225--1228, 2016

2016
[16]

A review of single-cell rna-seq annotation, integration, and cell--cell communication

Changde Cheng, Wenan Chen, Hongjian Jin, and Xiang Chen. A review of single-cell rna-seq annotation, integration, and cell--cell communication. Cells , 12(15):1970, 2023

1970
[17]

C. A. Brackley, N. Gilbert, D. Michieletto, A. Papantonis, M. C. F. Pereira, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo. Complex small-world regulatory networks emerge from the 3d organisation of the human genome. Nat. Comm. , 12(1):5756, 2021

2021
[18]

Semeraro, G

M. Semeraro, G. Negro, G. Forte, A. Suma, G. Gonnella, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo. Cluster size determines morphology of transcription factories in human cells. eLife , January 2025

2025
[19]

Negro, M

G. Negro, M. Semeraro, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo. A unified-field theory of genome organization and gene regulation. iScience , 27(12), 2024

2024
[20]

Pang and M

B. Pang and M. P. Snyder. Systematic identification of silencers in human cells. Nat. Genet. , 52(3):254--263, 2020

2020
[21]

Thiel, M

G. Thiel, M. Lietz, and M. Hohl. How mammalian transcriptional repressors work. Europ. J. of Biochem. , 271(14):2855--2862, 2004

2004
[22]

a mer, and B. M \

S. Oehler, E. R Eismann, H. Kr \"a mer, and B. M \"u ller-Hill. The three operators of the lac operon cooperate in repression. EMBO J. , 9(4):973--979, 1990

1990
[23]

Cooper and K

G. Cooper and K. Adams. The cell: a molecular approach . Oxford University Press, 2022

2022
[24]

Zhang, Y

Y. Zhang, Y. X. See, V. Tergaonkar, and M. J. Fullwood. Long-distance repression by human silencers: chromatin interactions and phase separation in silencers. Cells , 11(9):1560, 2022

2022
[25]

Beisel and R

C. Beisel and R. Paro. Silencing chromatin: comparing modes and mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Genet. , 12(2):123--135, 2011

2011
[26]

Lodish, A

H. Lodish, A. Berk, P. Matsudaira, C. A. Kaiser, M. Krieger, M. P. Scott, L. Zipursky, and J. Darnell. Molec. Cell Biol. W.H. Freeman and Company, 2004

2004
[27]

Perissi, K

V. Perissi, K. Jepsen, C. K. Glass, and M. G. Rosenfeld. Deconstructing repression: evolving models of co-repressor action. Nat. Rev. Genet. , 11(2):109--123, 2010

2010
[28]

Sengupta and E

N. Sengupta and E. Seto. Regulation of histone deacetylase activities. J. Cell. Biochem. , 93(1):57--67, 2004

2004
[29]

M. E. Andr \'e s, C. Burger, M. J. Peral-Rubio, E. Battaglioli, M. E. Anderson, J. Grimes, J. Dallman, N. Ballas, and G. Mandel. Corest: a functional corepressor required for regulation of neural-specific gene expression. PNAS , 96(17):9873--9878, 1999

1999
[30]

Zhang, W

R. Zhang, W. Xu, S. Shao, and Q. Wang. Gene silencing through crispr interference in bacteria: current advances and future prospects. Front. Microbiol. , 12:635227, 2021

2021
[31]

Capriotti, E

L. Capriotti, E. Baraldi, B. Mezzetti, C. Limera, and S. Sabbadini. Biotechnological approaches: gene overexpression, gene silencing, and genome editing to control fungal and oomycete diseases in grapevine. Int. J. Molec. Sci. , 21(16):5701, 2020

2020
[32]

N. P. Blackledge and R. J. Klose. The molecular principles of gene regulation by polycomb repressive complexes. Nat. Rev. Molec. Cell Biol. , 22(12):815--833, 2021

2021
[33]

Wong and J

F. Wong and J. Gunawardena. Gene regulation in and out of equilibrium. Annu. Rev. Biophys. , 49(1):199--226, 2020

2020
[34]

Papantonis and P

A. Papantonis and P. R. Cook. Transcription factories: genome organization and gene regulation. Chem. Rev. , 113(11):8683--8705, 2013

2013
[35]

Complexity of chromatin folding is captured by the strings and binders switch model

Mariano Barbieri, Mita Chotalia, James Fraser, Liron-Mark Lavitas, Josie Dostie, Ana Pombo, and Mario Nicodemi. Complexity of chromatin folding is captured by the strings and binders switch model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , 109:16173--16178, 2012

2012
[36]

Modeling epigenome folding: formation and dynamics of topologically associated chromatin domains

Daniel Jost, Pascal Carrivain, Giacomo Cavalli, and C \'e dric Vaillant. Modeling epigenome folding: formation and dynamics of topologically associated chromatin domains. Nucleic Acids Res. , 42(15):9553--9561, 2014

2014
[37]

Transferable model for chromosome architecture

Michele Di Pierro, Bin Zhang, Erez Lieberman Aiden, Peter G Wolynes, and Jos \'e N Onuchic. Transferable model for chromosome architecture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , 113(43):12168--12173, 2016

2016
[38]

Reciprocal insulation analysis of hi-c data shows that tads represent a functionally but not structurally privileged scale in the hierarchical folding of chromosomes

Yinxiu Zhan, Luca Mariani, Iros Barozzi, Edda G Schulz, Nils Bl \"u thgen, Michael Stadler, Guido Tiana, and Luca Giorgetti. Reciprocal insulation analysis of hi-c data shows that tads represent a functionally but not structurally privileged scale in the hierarchical folding o...

2017
[39]

Polymer physics predicts the effects of structural variants on chromatin architecture

Simona Bianco, Dar \' o G Lupi \'a \ n ez, Andrea M Chiariello, Carlo Annunziatella, Katerina Kraft, Robert Sch \"o pflin, Lars Wittler, Guillaume Andrey, Martin Vingron, Ana Pombo, et al. Polymer physics predicts the effects of structural variants on chromatin architecture. N...

2018
[40]

C. A. Brackley, J. Johnson, S. Kelly, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo. Simulated binding of transcription factors to active and inactive regions folds human chromosomes into loops, rosettes and topological domains. Nucleic Acids Res. , 44(8):3503--3512, 04 2016

2016
[41]

Merging 1d and 3d genomic information: Challenges in modelling and validation

Alessandra Merlotti, Angelo Rosa, and Daniel Remondini. Merging 1d and 3d genomic information: Challenges in modelling and validation. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms , 1863(6):194415, 2020. Transcriptional Profiles and Regulatory Gene Networks

2020
[42]

Semeraro, G

M. Semeraro, G. Negro, A. Suma, G. Gonnella, and D. Marenduzzo. 3d polymer simulations of genome organisation and transcription across different chromosomes and cell types. Phys. A , 625:129013, 2023

2023
[43]

Chiang, G

M. Chiang, G. Forte, N. Gilbert, D. Marenduzzo, and C. A. Brackley. Predictive polymer models for 3d chromosome organization. Hi-C Data Anal.: Meth. Protoc. , pages 267--291, 2022

2022
[44]

Semeraro, G

M. Semeraro, G. Negro, D. Marenduzzo, and G. Forte. Electronic S upplementary I nformation
[45]

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. PNAS , 110(38):E3605--E3611, 2013

2013
[46]

C. A. Brackley. Polymer compaction and bridging-induced clustering of protein-inspired patchy particles. J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. , 32(31):314002, 2020

2020
[47]

Chiang, C

M. Chiang, C. Battaglia, G. Forte, C. A. Brackley, N. Gilbert, and D. Marenduzzo. Bridging-induced phase separation and loop extrusion drive noise in chromatin transcription. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04907 , 2024

2024
[48]

Chiang, C

M. Chiang, C. A. Brackley, C. Naughton, R.-S. Nozawa, C. Battaglia, D. Marenduzzo, and N. Gilbert. Gene structure heterogeneity drives transcription noise within human chromosomes. bioRxiv , pages 2022--06, 2022

2022
[49]

Buckle, C

A. Buckle, C. A. Brackley, S. Boyle, D. Marenduzzo, and N. Gilbert. Polymer simulations of heteromorphic chromatin predict the 3d folding of complex genomic loci. Molec. Cell , 72(4):786--797, 2018

2018
[50]

Chiang, C

M. Chiang, C. A. Brackley, C. Naughton, R.-S. Nozawa, C. Battaglia, D. Marenduzzo, and N. Gilbert. Genome-wide chromosome architecture prediction reveals biophysical principles underlying gene structure. Cell Genom. , 4(12), 2024

2024
[51]

C. G. Danko, S. L. Hyland, L. J. Core, L. Martins, A, C. T. Waters, H. W. Lee, V. G. Cheung, W. L. Kraus, J. T. Lis, and A. Siepel. Identification of active transcriptional regulatory elements from gro-seq data. Nat. Meth. , 12(5):433--438, 2015

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

B. Alberts. Molecular biology of the cell . Garland science, 2017

work page 2017

[2] [2]

J. M. W. Slack and L. Dale. Essential developmental biology . John Wiley & Sons, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Dupont and S

S. Dupont and S. A. Wickstr \"o m. Mechanical regulation of chromatin and transcription. Nat. Rev. Genet. , 23(10):624--643, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Grosveld, J

F. Grosveld, J. van Staalduinen, and R. Stadhouders. Transcriptional regulation by (super) enhancers: from discovery to mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. , 22(1):127--146, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Pombo and N

A. Pombo and N. Dillon. Three-dimensional genome architecture: players and mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. , 16(4):245--257, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [6]

M Ibrahim and S

D. M Ibrahim and S. Mundlos. The role of 3d chromatin domains in gene regulation: a multi-facetted view on genome organization. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. , 61:1--8, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

M Du, S. H. Stitzinger, J.-H. Spille, W.-K. Cho, C. Lee, M. Hijaz, A. Quintana, and I. I Ciss \'e . Direct observation of a condensate effect on super-enhancer controlled gene bursting. Cell , 187(2):331--344, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

S imkov \'a , Amanda S

H. S imkov \'a , Amanda S. C \^a mara, and M. Mascher. Hi-c techniques: from genome assemblies to transcription regulation. J. Exp. Bot. , page erae085, 2024

work page 2024