Polymer Simulations of Heteromorphic Chromatin Predict the 3D Folding of Complex Genomic Loci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromatin folded into 3D macromolecular structures is often analyzed by chromosome conformation capture (3C) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) techniques, but these frequently provide contradictory results. Chromatin can be modeled as a simple polymer composed of a connected chain of units. By embedding data for epigenetic marks (H3K27ac), chromatin accessibility (assay for transposase-accessible chromatin using sequencing [ATAC-seq]), and structural anchors (CCCTC-binding factor [CTCF]), we developed a highly predictive heteromorphic polymer (HiP-HoP) model, where the chromatin fiber varied along its length; combined with diffusing protein bridges and loop extrusion, this model predicted the 3D organization of genomic loci at a population and single-cell level. The model was validated at several gene loci, including the complex Pax6 gene, and was able to determine locus conformations across cell types with varying levels of transcriptional activity and explain different mechanisms of enhancer use. Minimal a priori knowledge of epigenetic marks is sufficient to recapitulate complex genomic loci in 3D and enable predictions of chromatin folding paths.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".