Abstract
Four specific forces (H-bonds, van der Waals forces, hydrophobic and charge interactions) shape the structure of proteins, and many biologists assume they will determine the shape of all structures in the cell. However, as the mass and contour length of a human chromosome are ~7 orders of magnitude larger than those of a typical protein, additional forces can become significant. We review evidence that additional non-specific (entropic) forces are major determinants of chromosomal shape and position. They are sufficient to drive the segregation (de-mixing) of newly replicated DNA to the poles of bacterial cells, while an entropic centrifuge can both form human chromosomes into territories and position them appropriately in nuclei; more locally, a depletion attraction can loop bacterial and human genomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Human chromosomes are arguably the largest and most important biomolecules, yet we still know relatively little about how they are folded or how folding affects function. For example, we cannot yet predict how active a gene might be when inserted into a new genomic location. This contrasts with our knowledge of protein structure, and the way it determines function. Thus, biologists are all taught about fundamental architectural motifs like α-helices and β-sheets that are used to build proteins. They also understand the principles that drive folding into tertiary structures (e.g., by positioning hydrophobic residues in the interior), and assembly into quaternary complexes (e.g., through interactions between complementary surfaces). They expect to be able to tinker with the structure and alter enzyme activity. Our purpose here is to tease out analogous principles that underlie genome structure, with the idea that one day we will be able to use these to modulate gene expression. (For reviews, see Lanctôt et al. 2007; Langowski and Heermann 2007; Misteli 2007).) We concentrate on the roles played by non-specific, and particularly entropic forces, as we believe their importance has been underestimated.
Some principles
One might hope that proteins and genomes would be folded using the same principles; although many are certainly shared, there is one over-riding difference (Misteli 2001; Karsenti 2008). Consider a protein like one in an icosahedral capsid of a virus. Such a protein first folds into a structure in which we can specify exactly where one particular residue is relative to another, before “self-assembling” into the larger capsid where again every component has a well-defined position (Fig. 1a; Zandi et al. 2004). Then, X-ray crystallography provides the gold standard method for determining structure. Contrast this with the cytoskeleton. This lacks a rigid architecture and is intrinsically unstable; it persists only by exchanging subunits with others in its surroundings, and—if those subunits are removed or active turnover is prevented—it collapses and disappears (Fig. 1b). No two skeletons have exactly the same shape, and the structure changes from moment to moment. Then, statements about the position of any residue are necessarily probabilistic, and it is foolish to attempt to “solve” the structure by crystallography.
We will argue that genome structure is dependent upon both self-assembly and self-organization. Then, current shape during interphase will depend on past history; for example, in which cell lineage that genome is found, and what the “initial” conditions were (e.g., the conformation during the previous mitosis). It will also depend on a continuing energy input (e.g., through transcription and its effects on loo**; Cook 2002; Marenduzzo et al. 2007). As a result, long genomic polymers are probably metastable, balanced on a cusp by several competing forces (depending on thermodynamics, activity, and kinetics; Rosa and Everaers 2008; Cook and Marenduzzo 2009). They will also be exquisitely sensitive to the slightest perturbation (which facilitates regulation over a greater dynamic range).
We might imagine that the critical interactions involved in maintaining the structure would be conserved. It seems they are. Thus, segments of bacterial and yeast DNA can integrate into mammalian DNA and fold correctly to give viable interphase and mitotic structures (Heng et al. 1994; McManus et al. 1994). This implies that the integrated DNA encodes the required structural cues, and that mammalian proteins can interpret these appropriately. In other words, the critical interactions cannot be kingdom specific. If so, many biologists would then expect those interactions to involve conserved proteins bound to conserved DNA targets, but the various genome sequencing projects have signally failed to uncover any obvious candidates. (The structural maintenance of chromosomes complex proteins (e.g., condensin, cohesin, MukBEF complexes) are found in all three domains of life, and conditional knockdowns show that no single one is the sole organizer of mitotic structure in eukaryotes (Belmont 2006; Peters et al. 2008).) We will suggest that some critical interactions involve non-specific (entropic) forces acting on polymerases and their transcription units.
One way of thinking about genome structure
One might hope that the same set of four forces that determine protein structure (i.e., hydrogen or H-bonds, van der Waals forces, hydrophobic, and charge interactions) would also shape genomes—and they certainly do. But before the effect of these forces is considered, it is important to ask what shape a chromosome might take in their absence. In other words, what would be the structure of an “unorganized” chromosome? It is often implicitly assumed that chromosomes, if unperturbed by other forces, would intermingle freely into an unintelligible mess (like cooked spaghetti). But the mass and contour length of a typical 100-Mbp human chromosome are both ~7 orders of magnitude larger than those of an average-sized (5-nm) protein, so additional forces can become significant. Computer modeling shows that the structures formed by highly confined DNA are non-trivial, and respond in surprising ways to non-specific perturbations such as protein binding and macromolecular crowding. Then, some aspects of chromosome structure reflect the chromosome's tendency to “self-assemble” into thermodynamically preferable conformations, and this can occur even in the absence of all four specific forces and any direct energy input.
Segregating bacterial chromosomes
A simple thought experiment can demonstrate that DNA can adopt a surprisingly organized structure. Consider the red and blue spheres representing proteins in Fig. 2 (Jun 2008). If the wall between the two compartments is removed, diffusion allied to the entropy of mixing drives the system towards greater disorder and complete intermixing. But if we now connect particles of the same colour to give two long strings (now representing red and blue chromosomes), continued diffusion can now drive de-mixing. This follows because one string in a mixture provides a set of obstacles to the other, so restricting the number of possible conformations. But on de-mixing, each string can access more conformations by occupying a smaller volume free of obstacles. A related effect ensures that circular polymers de-mix even better than their linear counterparts, and that supercoiled circular polymers de-mix better than both (Frank-Kamenetskii et al. 1975; Müller et al. 2000; Jun and Mulder 2006).
One might imagine that this effect could have important implications for chromosome structure. Indeed, Monte Carlo simulations of bacteria have shown that replicated DNA will rapidly segregate to the cell poles as it is synthesized (just as it does in vivo) in the absence of any mechanism other than random diffusion (Jun and Mulder 2006). A similar effect explains why a DNA hairpin confined in a nano-slit (originally introduced by electrophoresis) spontaneously de-mixes to give a linear molecule (Levy et al. 2008). (This effect does not occur at high-volume fractions in a spherical container (Jun Chromosome territories are often positioned non-randomly in nuclei (Gilbert et al. 2005; Cremer and Cremer 2006; Misteli 2007). For example, gene-poor chromosomes in human lymphocytes tend to be peripheral and gene-rich ones internal, inactive heterochromatin often aggregates at the periphery, and centromeres may cluster into chromocenters. For reasons that remain unclear, G/C content proves to be one of the best predictors of such radial positioning; a high value correlates with an interior position, a high gene content, transcriptional activity, and an increased flexibility and decompaction of the chromatin fibre (Gilbert et al. 2005; Cremer and Cremer 2006; Misteli 2007). Such positioning has important consequences, for example in repressing genes by bringing them closer to inactive heterochromatin. It is again usually assumed that chromosomal shape and positioning results from the action of the four specific forces acting locally—for example, between one nucleosome and another, or between nucleosomes and the lamina. Monte Carlo simulations were used to demonstrate that entropic forces acting alone can position and shape self-avoiding polymers within crowded nuclei in the ways seen experimentally (Fig. 3; Cook and Marenduzzo 2009; de Nooijer et al. 2009). Polymers composed of strings of beads were allowed to “diffuse” in a confining sphere until they reached equilibrium. Flexible polymers (like GC-rich and gene-rich chromosomes) tend to be found more towards the centre, probably through the resolution of forces acting in an “entropic” centrifuge. Thus, at low packing fractions, a stiff polymer statistically occupies more volume than a flexible one (it has a larger radius of gyration), and—when it approaches the confining wall—it “feels” the wall sooner to lose more entropy; therefore, it tends to be found more towards the interior. Thus, in the cartoon on the right of Fig. 3a(i) the stiffer blue polymer is larger and more surface-phobic, and so tends to be excluded from the (larger) grey volume at the periphery; as a result, it is more frequently found towards the centre in the smaller yellow volume. But at high packing fractions, the entropic effect illustrated in the cartoon in Fig. 3a(iii) probably becomes significant. Here, one end of the first persistence length in a stiff polymer (represented by the blue rod) abuts the confining wall. If we imagine this blue rod is tethered to the wall, it can access all conformations in the light blue volume—but not the grey volume outside the confining wall. If the rod is now divided into two (shown in red) to increase flexibility, the light blue volume still remains accessible, but the particular conformation shown is not permissible (as the second half of the red rod penetrates the wall). This qualitatively suggests that flexible (red) polymers lose more configurations (and so entropy) when squashed against the wall. Then, they have become the most surface-phobic, and so tend to be found internally where they lose less entropy. This is what is seen experimentally (indicated by the tick in Fig. 3a(iii)), where heterochromatic (stiffer) regions are often—albeit not always—peripheral (Solovei et al. 2009).
Entropic forces can also position compact/thick fibres (like heterochromatin) towards the periphery, in accord with experimental observations; compact fibres can approach closer to the confining wall (Fig. 3b), while a larger depletion attraction (below) favours packing of thicker fibres against the wall (Fig. 3c; Cook and Marenduzzo 2009). This is also in accord with experimental observations: compact heterochromatin is often peripheral (Solovei et al. 2009). In addition, flexible territories tend to intermingle less with others, in accord with gene-dense (and so flexible) chromosomes being poor translocation partners (Bickmore and Teague 2002). If the polymers carry a large terminal bead (to represent centromeric heterochromatin at one end of a telocentric chromosome), beads are found both at the edge of their own territories and clustered at the nuclear periphery—again as found in vivo (Cook and Marenduzzo 2009; de Nooijer et al. 2009). Entropy can also create order through the “depletion attraction” (Asakura and Oosawa 1958; Marenduzzo et al. 2006b). Consider a few large multi-protein complexes and many smaller macromolecules (mainly soluble proteins of ~5 nm) crowded into the nucleus. The mega-complexes will be bombarded from all sides by the smaller macromolecules (Fig. 4a(i)). As two mega-complexes approach, the smaller macromolecules are sterically prevented from entering the volume immediately between the two. As a result, the small macromolecules exert an unopposed force equivalent to their osmotic pressure on opposite sides of the two, kee** them together. Again, ordering the minority increases the disorder of the majority. The energy involved scales with the ratio of the diameters of the large and small spheres, and—in our case of the crowded cell—becomes equivalent to that of several H-bonds when the large spheres are >10 nm in diameter. Measurements (using “optical tweezers”) of the force required to pull apart two large plastic beads in a crowded solution of smaller spheres confirms the accuracy of the underlying theory (Yodh et al. 2001).
Now imagine the mega-complex is bound to DNA in a crowded nucleus (Rippe 2007). As an example, we will use an RNA polymerase II complex containing the multi-subunit enzyme (~15 nm), and its nascent RNA (compacted diameter ~14 nm) with associated proteins (which might include a ~25 nm spliceosome); however, the argument applies equally to any cluster of factors bound to DNA. Such a mega-complex will be subject to the depletion attraction, and when two bound to the same DNA molecule come together they will inevitably loop the intervening DNA. Such loo** has an entropic cost, and a cost/benefit analysis shows that the attraction can make a significant contribution towards stabilizing 20-kbp loops (Fig. 4a(ii); Marenduzzo et al. 2006a). Theory also suggests crowding affects the rate at which equilibrium is attained (Toan et al. 2006)—by speeding loo** (by reducing effective loop length and so increasing diffusive encounters) and slowing unloo** (by increasing viscosity). This effect is generalizable to any imperfection in the fibre (e.g., due to bound transcription factors, or more open chromatin; St-Jean et al. 2008), and the resulting loops will persist for as long as the mega-complexes remain bound. In our example, this is the time taken to transcribe a gene, which is usually many minutes—and can be hours if polymerases pause (as many do; Margaritis and Holstege 2008). In our example, the looped structure persists only as long as the polymerase continues to transcribe; the structure is self-organizing as it depends on an energy input. There is now good experimental evidence (e.g., provided by FISH, chromosome conformation capture and its derivatives) that genomes are looped, and that active polymerases are the ties (Fullwood et al. 2009; Cook 2010). Although individual loops may cluster together to give a neat rosette—and so into strings of rosettes (Cook 2002, 2010)—simulations suggest that more complicated structures will form (Marenduzzo et al. 2006a; Junier et al. 2010). The attraction can also bring together large heterochromatic clumps—which might be nucleolar organizing regions (NORs) or centromeres—into nucleoli or chromocentres (Fig. 4a(iii)). We now consider one architectural motif often depicted in our textbooks—the solenoid. This is usually considered to be the first member in a helical hierarchy in which nucleosomal strings are coiled into 30-nm solenoids, solenoids into 200–300 nm fibres, and so on. There are powerful theoretical reasons why helices might form. Consider a long flexible tube in which different segments have a higher affinity for each other than the solvent (justifiable as nucleosomes so often aggregate). This affinity could arise through action of some/all of our four specific forces and/or the depletion attraction (Snir and Kamien 2005; Hansen-Goos et al. 2007). Both analytic treatments and Monte Carlo simulations show the tube will spontaneously fold into a helix, with different helices packing side-by-side into double and triple helices; this arrangement maximizes segment/segment interactions and minimizes segment/solvent ones (Fig. 4b; Banavar et al. 2007). This kind of analysis transcends chemical detail, and the resulting folding probably underlies the formation of α-helices in proteins, double helices in DNA, and the coiling of chromatin fibres in vitro. Experiments also show that cations compact nucleosomal strings into 30-nm fibres in vitro, while X-ray crystallography confirms these fibres are helical (van Holde and Zlatanova 2007). Unfortunately, there remains little agreement as to whether equivalent coils exist in vivo, and—if they do—about nearly all details of their structure (van Holde and Zlatanova 2007). For example, what is the path of the DNA (is it a one- or two-start helix?), how wide is the helix, and what are the major contacts between turns? Moreover, nucleosomes seen in electron micrographs generally follow random zig-zagging paths, and not helical ones (Horowitz-Scherer and Woodcock 2006); most disturbingly, no solenoids or 30-nm fibres are seen in vitrified cell sections prepared under conditions where they should be detectable (Eltsov et al. 2008). If solenoids and higher-order coils are important architectural motifs, we are still some way from describing their details. It may even be that Nature prevents solenoids from forming, simply because the forces described above are so strong that they would generate (if acting unopposed) structures so stable that they could never be uncoiled (a requirement if polymerases are to read the sequence DNA). Indeed, canonical 30-nm solenoids are only seen in electron micrographs of inert cells devoid of polymerases (e.g., sea urchin sperm, chicken erythrocytes; Horowitz-Scherer and Woodcock 2006). Biologists typically focus on four types of (specific) force (i.e., H-bonds, van der Waals forces, hydrophobic and charge interactions) that shape many biological structures, and many assume they will be the sole determinants of all structures in the cell. We have reviewed evidence that other non-specific (entropic) forces are major players in sha** and positioning chromosomes. We do not wish to suggest that these entropic forces act alone, without contribution from the four familiar ones; rather, we imagine the ultimate outcome is determined by resolution of the combined forces—which sometimes may be conflicting. For example, charge interactions acting between bound transcription factors (Rippe 2001) will undoubtedly contribute with the depletion attraction to loo**. And although an entropic centrifuge may drive heterochromatin to the periphery in higher animals and plants, specific nucleosome:lamin interactions are probably also involved in animals (Polioudaki et al. 2001)—but not in plants (as they lack lamin proteins). Similarly, heterochromatin may often be peripheral, but the rod cells in the retinas of diurnal mammals provide a striking exception (Solovei et al. 2009), so here specific forces may become the most significant. It has now become a relatively trivial matter to modify a specific site within a protein and so change that protein’s function, and this ability is built on a secure knowledge of the major forces that determine the structure. We believe that we will only be able to modify specific sites within the genome and so change function once we have an equally secure knowledge of the relevant forces, and this will only be gained by combining experimental approaches with the theoretical ones described here.Positioning human chromosomes
Entropic forces can drive loo**
Solenoids
Conclusions
Abbreviations
- FISH:
-
Fluorescence in situ hybridization
- H-bonds:
-
Hydrogen bonds
- SMC complex:
-
Structural maintenance of chromosomes complex
References
Asakura S, Oosawa F (1958) Interactions between particles suspended in solutions of macromolecules. J Polym Sci 33:183–192
Banavar JR, Hoang TX, Maddocks JH et al (2007) Structural motifs of biomolecules. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:17283–17286
Belmont AS (2006) Mitotic chromosome structure and condensation. Curr Opin Cell Biol 18:632–638
Bickmore WA, Teague P (2002) Influences of chromosome size, gene density and nuclear position on the frequency of constitutional translocations in the human population. Chromosome Res 10:707–715
Bohn M, Heermann DW, van Driel R (2007) Random loop model for long polymers. Phys Rev E 76:051805
Cook PR (2002) Predicting three-dimensional genome structure from transcriptional activity. Nat Genet 32:347–352
Cook PR (2010) A model for all genomes; the role of transcription factories. J Mol Biol 395:1–10
Cook PR, Marenduzzo D (2009) Entropic organization of interphase chromosomes. J Cell Biol 186:825–834
Cremer T, Cremer C (2006) Rise, fall and resurrection of chromosome territories: a historical perspective. Eur J Histochem 50:223–272
de Nooijer S, Wellink J, Mulder B, Bisseling T (2009) Non-specific interactions are sufficient to explain the position of heterochromatic chromocenters and nucleoli in interphase nuclei. Nucleic Acids Res 11:3558–3568
Eltsov M, Maclellan KM, Maeshima K, Frangakis AS, Dubochet J (2008) Analysis of cryo-electron microscopy images does not support the existence of 30-nm chromatin fibers in mitotic chromosomes in situ. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19732–19737
Frank-Kamenetskii MD, Lukashin AV, Vologodskii AV (1975) Statistical mechanics and topology of polymer chains. Nature 258:398–402
Fullwood MJ, Liu MH, Pan YF et al (2009) An oestrogen-receptor-alpha-bound human chromatin interactome. Nature 462:58–64
Gilbert N, Gilchrist S, Bickmore WA (2005) Chromatin organization in the mammalian nucleus. Int Rev Cytol 242:283–336
Hansen-Goos H, Roth R, Mecke K, Dietrich S (2007) Solvation of proteins: linking thermodynamics to geometry. Phys Rev Lett 99:128101
Heng HH, Tsui LC, Moens PB (1994) Organization of heterologous DNA inserts on the mouse meiotic chromosome core. Chromosoma 103:401–407
Horowitz-Scherer RA, Woodcock CL (2006) Organization of interphase chromatin. Chromosoma 115:1–14
Jhunjhunwala S, van Zelm MC, Peak MM et al (2008) The 3D structure of the immunoglobulin heavy-chain locus: implications for long-range genomic interactions. Cell 133:265–279
Jun S (2008) Can entropy save bacteria? ar**v:0808.2646v2
Jun S, Mulder B (2006) Entropy-driven spatial organization of highly confined polymers: lessons for the bacterial chromosome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:12388–12393
Junier S, Martin O, Képès F (2010) Spatial and topological organization of DNA chains induced by gene co-localization. PLoS Comp Biol 6:e10000678
Karsenti E (2008) Self-organization in cell biology: a brief history. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 9:255–262
Khalil A, Grant JL, Caddle LB, Atzema E, Mills KD, Arneodo A (2007) Chromosome territories have a highly nonspherical morphology and nonrandom positioning. Chromosome Res 15:899–916
Lanctôt C, Cheutin T, Cremer M, Cavalli G, Cremer T (2007) Dynamic genome architecture in the nuclear space: regulation of gene expression in three dimensions. Nat Rev Genet 8:104–115
Langowski J, Heermann DW (2007) Computational modeling of the chromatin fiber. Semin Cell Dev Biol 18:659–667
Levy SL, Mannion JT, Cheng J, Reccius CH, Craighead HG (2008) Entropic unfolding of DNA molecules in nanofluidic channels. Nano Lett 8:3839–3844
Marenduzzo D, Micheletti C, Cook PR (2006a) Entropy-driven genome organization. Biophys J 90:3712–3721
Marenduzzo D, Finan K, Cook PR (2006b) The depletion attraction: an underappreciated force driving cellular organization. J Cell Biol 175:681–686
Marenduzzo D, Faro-Trindade I, Cook PR (2007) What are the molecular ties that maintain genomic loops? Trends Genet 23:126–133
Margaritis T, Holstege FC (2008) Poised RNA polymerase II gives pause for thought. Cell 133:581–514
McManus J, Perry P, Sumner AT et al (1994) Unusual chromosome structure of fission yeast DNA in mouse cells. J Cell 107:469–486
Misteli T (2001) The concept of self-organization in cellular architecture. J Cell Biol 155:181–185
Misteli T (2007) Beyond the sequence: cellular organization of genome function. Cell 128:787–800
Müller M, Wittmer JP, Cates ME (2000) Topological effects in ring polymers. II. Influence of persistence length. Phys Rev E 61:4078–4089
Münkel C, Eils R, Dietzel S et al (1999) Compartmentalization of interphase chromosomes observed in simulation and experiment. J Mol Biol 285:1053–1065
Peters JM, Tedeschi A, Schmitz J (2008) The cohesin complex and its roles in chromosome biology. Genes Dev 22:3089–3114
Polioudaki H, Kourmouli N, Drosou V et al (2001) Histones H3/H4 form a tight complex with the inner nuclear membrane protein LBR and heterochromatin protein 1. EMBO Rep 2:920–925
Rippe K (2001) Making contacts on a nucleic acid polymer. Trends Biochem Sci 26:733–740
Rippe K (2007) Dynamic organization of the cell nucleus. Curr Opin Genet Dev 17:373–380
Rosa A, Everaers R (2008) Structure and dynamics of interphase chromosomes. PLoS Comput Biol 4:e1000153
Snir Y, Kamien RD (2005) Entropically driven helix formation. Science 307:1067
Solovei I, Kreysing M, Lanctôt C et al (2009) Nuclear architecture of rod photoreceptor cells adapts to vision in mammalian evolution. Cell 137:356–368
St-Jean Ph, Vaillant C, Audit B, Arneodo A (2008) Spontaneous emergence of sequence-dependent rosettelike folding of chromatin fiber. Phys Rev E 77:061923
Toan NM, Marenduzzo D, Cook PR, Micheletti C (2006) Depletion effects and loop formation in self-avoiding polymers. Phys Rev Lett 97:178302
van Holde K, Zlatanova J (2007) Chromatin fiber structure: where is the problem now? Semin Cell Dev Biol 18:651–658
Yodh AG, Lin KH, Crocker JC, Dinsmore AD, Verma R, Kaplan PD (2001) Entropically driven self-assembly and interaction in suspension. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A 359:921–937
Zandi R, Reguera D, Bruinsma RF, Gelbart WM, Rudnick J (2004) Origin of icosahedral symmetry in viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:15556–15560
Acknowledgements
KF is supported by the E.P. Abraham Trust, a Clarendon award from the University of Oxford, and an Overseas Research Student award from the UK Government. Research in PRC's lab is supported by The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, The Medical Research Council, and The Wellcome Trust. Research in DM's lab is supported by The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Finan, K., Cook, P.R. & Marenduzzo, D. Non-specific (entropic) forces as major determinants of the structure of mammalian chromosomes. Chromosome Res 19, 53–61 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-010-9150-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-010-9150-y