3D Reconstruction of Dinoflagellate Chromosomes from Hi-C Data Challenges the Cholesteric Liquid Crystal Hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dinoflagellates have permanently condensed chromosomes that are often described as liquid crystalline. Specifically, a Cholesteric Liquid Crystal (CLC) model was proposed in which DNA is organized into parallel fibers within stacked discs, such that the fiber orientation rotates by a constant angle between adjacent discs. Extrachromosomal loops extending from the discs were hypothesized to be more accessible and thus to contain transcriptionally active genes. Although the CLC model captures some features of dinoflagellate chromosome structure, its validity has not been rigorously tested against modern genomic data. Here, we use chromatin conformation capture (Hi-C) data to simulate 3D conformations of chromosome scaffolds for three dinoflagellate species: Fugacium kawagutii , Symbiodinium microadriaticum , and Breviolum minutum . Consensus and population-based modeling generate diverse polymer conformations with moderate orientational and nematic order. However, we find no evidence of cholesteric discs. Moreover, contact probability curves from empirical Hi-C data are inconsistent with the CLC model. Nevertheless, we show that introducing locus-specific boundaries into the CLC model can produce simulated Hi-C contact maps with topologically associating domains (TADs), which are observed in experimental Hi-C contact maps for these species. Finally, by mapping RNA-seq data onto our simulated conformations, we show that actively transcribed genes are present throughout entire chromosomes, and not exclusively on extrachromosomal loops or at the surface. Our results challenge the long-standing CLC model and suggest that dinoflagellate chromosomes are organized into condensed but non-crystalline structures that do not impede transcription.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".