Joint annotation of chromatin state and chromatin conformation reveals relationships among domain types and identifies domains of cell-type-specific expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genomic neighborhood of a gene influences its activity, a behavior that is attributable in part to domain-scale regulation. Previous genomic studies have identified many types of regulatory domains. However, due to the difficulty of integrating genomics data sets, the relationships among these domain types are poorly understood. Semi-automated genome annotation (SAGA) algorithms facilitate human interpretation of heterogeneous collections of genomics data by simultaneously partitioning the human genome and assigning labels to the resulting genomic segments. However, existing SAGA methods cannot integrate inherently pairwise chromatin conformation data. We developed a new computational method, called graph-based regularization (GBR), for expressing a pairwise prior that encourages certain pairs of genomic loci to receive the same label in a genome annotation. We used GBR to exploit chromatin conformation information during genome annotation by encouraging positions that are close in 3D to occupy the same type of domain. Using this approach, we produced a model of chromatin domains in eight human cell types, thereby revealing the relationships among known domain types. Through this model, we identified clusters of tightly regulated genes expressed in only a small number of cell types, which we term "specific expression domains." We found that domain boundaries marked by promoters and CTCF motifs are consistent between cell types even when domain activity changes. Finally, we showed that GBR can be used to transfer information from well-studied cell types to less well-characterized cell types during genome annotation, making it possible to produce high-quality annotations of the hundreds of cell types with limited available data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".