Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spatial organization of the genome plays a critical role in regulating gene expression, cellular differentiation, and genome stability. This review provides an in-depth examination of the methodologies, computational tools, and frameworks developed to map the three-dimensional (3D) architecture of the genome, focusing on both ligation-based and ligation-free techniques. We also explore the limitations of these methods, including biases introduced by restriction enzyme digestion and ligation inefficiencies, and compare them to more recent ligation-free approaches such as Genome Architecture Mapping (GAM) and Split-Pool Recognition of Interactions by Tag Extension (SPRITE). These techniques offer unique insights into higher-order chromatin structures by bypassing ligation steps, thus enabling the capture of complex multi-way interactions that are often challenging to resolve with traditional methods. Furthermore, we discuss the integration of chromatin interaction data with other genomic layers through multimodal approaches, including recent advances in single-cell technologies like sci-HiC and scSPRITE, which help unravel the heterogeneity of chromatin architecture in development and disease.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".