Chromatin loops are an ancestral hallmark of the animal regulatory genome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In bilaterian animals, gene regulation is shaped by a combination of linear and spatial regulatory information. Regulatory elements along the genome are integrated into gene regulatory landscapes through chromatin compartmentalization 1,2 , insulation of neighbouring genomic regions 3,4 and chromatin looping that brings together distal cis -regulatory sequences 5 . However, the evolution of these regulatory features is unknown because the three-dimensional genome architecture of most animal lineages remains unexplored 6,7 . To trace the evolutionary origins of animal genome regulation, here we characterized the physical organization of the genome in non-bilaterian animals (sponges, ctenophores, placozoans and cnidarians) 8,9 and their closest unicellular relatives (ichthyosporeans, filastereans and choanoflagellates) 10 by combining high-resolution chromosome conformation capture 11,12 with epigenomic marks and gene expression data. Our comparative analysis showed that chromatin looping is a conserved feature of genome architecture in ctenophores, placozoans and cnidarians. These sequence-determined distal contacts involve both promoter–enhancer and promoter–promoter interactions. By contrast, chromatin loops are absent in the unicellular relatives of animals. Our findings indicate that spatial genome regulation emerged early in animal evolution. This evolutionary innovation introduced regulatory complexity, ultimately facilitating the diversification of animal developmental programmes and cell type repertoires.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".