The eukaryotic genome is organized in a functional and spatially segregated manner within the interphase nucleus. Nuclear architecture plays a crucial role in gene regulation and defining cellular identity. Early studies led to the classical view of a bipartite chromatin composition in which euchromatin is defined as active chromatin located at the nuclear center while heterochromatin corresponds to the more compact chromatin fraction, generally positioned at the nuclear periphery and surrounding the nucleoli (Cremer and Cremer, 2001; Jost et al., 2012; Solovei et al., 2016). While heterochromatin correlates with late-replicating, low-GC chromatin, euchromatin is characterized by an early replication timing and high-GC content. This differential epigenetic landscape of the interphase nucleus can be also recapitulated by Giemsa bands (G-bands) (Serna-Pujol et al., 2021), which arise from the characteristic banding of metaphase chromosomes.

Chromatin organization involves several hierarchical levels, including chromosome territories (Cremer and Cremer, 2001; Girelli et al., 2020), A (active) and B (inactive) compartments at the megabase level (Lieberman-Aiden et al., 2009), topological associated domains (TADs) (Dixon et al., 2012; Nora et al., 2012; Sexton et al., 2012), and chromatin loops. Moreover, chromatin segregation is facilitated by chromatin tethering to scaffolding structures. This anchorage originates nuclear environments referred as lamina-associated domains (LADs) or nucleolus-associated domains (NADs), which constitute heterochromatic regions anchored to the nuclear lamina and the nucleolus, respectively.

Human cells have 1000–1500 LADs that cover more than one-third of the genome (Guelen et al., 2008). LADs represent a well-known repressive environment, characterized by low gene density, low gene expression, and a great overlap with B compartment. LADs are enriched in repressive histone modifications, including H3K9me2, which is considered a conserved chromatin mark of LADs (Poleshko et al., 2019). While H3K9me2 plays a part in anchoring chromatin to the nuclear lamina, current data indicate that it is probably not a sufficient signal in mammals, as other anchoring mechanisms may exist (Harr et al., 2015; Kind et al., 2013).

The nucleolus is a membraneless structure where ribosome biogenesis and regulation occurs. Nucleoli also act as central chromatin organizers. Genomic regions positioned close to nucleolus are referred as NADs, which were firstly genome-wide identified in human using a biochemical purification of nucleoli (Dillinger et al., 2017; Németh et al., 2010). NADs consist of mainly heterochromatic regions and an important overlap with LADs was found. Accordingly, some LADs have been found to stochastically reshuffled after mitosis and associate with nucleoli (Kind et al., 2013). These observations suggest that the lamina and nucleolus could act as interchangeable scaffolds for heterochromatin positioning. More recently, the inclusion of HiC-based approaches has provided more accurate genome-wide NADs maps (Bersaglieri et al., 2022; Peng et al., 2023).

Histone composition, including histone variants and their modifications, also plays a role in defining chromatin functionality (Martire and Banaszynski, 2020). In particular, linker histone H1 family is evolutionary diverse and human somatic cells may contain up to seven H1 variants (H1.1 to H1.5, H1.0, and H1X). Although H1 has classically been regarded as a general repressor, increasing evidence support H1 variants functional diversity in chromatin regulation (Fyodorov et al., 2018; Millán-Ariño et al., 2016). A compromised H1 content causes chromatin structural defects, evidenced both in human (Serna-Pujol et al., 2022) and mice models (Geeven et al., 2015; Willcockson et al., 2021; Yusufova et al., 2021). Although in these scenarios multiple H1 variants depletion leads to chromatin decompaction, the contribution of individual H1 variants in maintaining chromatin structure has not been studied.

A long-standing enigma concerning H1 is whether its variants have a uniform distribution in different cell types or, conversely, display cell-line-specific binding patterns. The presumption that H1 variants are specifically distributed among different cell lines comes from combining various pieces of evidence from different publications (Cao et al., 2013; Izzo et al., 2013; Li et al., 2012; Millán-Ariño et al., 2014; Torres et al., 2016). Nevertheless, no study has properly addressed the question up to date. Consequently, the absence of existing reports using standardized experimental and analytical workflows may lead to potential misinterpretation of the data. The only studies that performed a systematic analysis of different variants have been performed in a single-cell model and often used overexpression strategies. These include the analysis of H1.1–H1.5 using DamID in IMR-90 cells (Izzo et al., 2013), and a second report in which ChIP-Seq of endogenous H1.2 and H1X and the exogenous H1.0-HA and H1.4-HA was performed in T47D cells (Millán-Ariño et al., 2014). Recently, we performed the first genome-wide analysis of six endogenous H1 variants in human cells, bypassing the everlasting limitation of mapping exogenous proteins (Serna-Pujol et al., 2022 and in preparation for H1.3 data). In T47D cells, H1 variants are distributed in two large groups depending on the local GC content. H1.2, H1.3, H1.5, and H1.0 are enriched at low-GC regions and B compartment while H1.4 and H1X are more abundant within high-GC regions and A compartment. However, whether these distribution profiles are conserved among different cell types remains unknown.

H1 complement (i.e. H1 variants and its proportions present in a specific cell) is dynamic throughout differentiation and cancer and also varies between cell types. Whether these expression fluctuations translate into changes in distribution patterns has not been studied. The best-characterized example is H1.0, which accumulates during differentiation (Terme et al., 2011) and whose expression is associated to a less aggressive phenotype of tumoral cells (Torres et al., 2016). H1.0 has been described as a replacement histone, as it responds to a compromised H1 content. In breast cancer cells, combined depletion of H1.2 and H1.4 leads to H1.0 upregulation, although without significant redistribution alterations (Izquierdo-Bouldstridge et al., 2017; Serna-Pujol et al., 2022).

In this study, we provide novel insights into the differential nuclear distribution of somatic H1 variants in human cells, through an imaging approach. Super-resolution microscopy in T47D cells shows that H1.2, H1.3, H1.5 and, to a lesser extent, H1.0, are enriched at the nuclear periphery and coincide more with more compacted DNA, as supported by super-resolution microscopy. Contrarywise, H1X and H1.4 are distributed throughout the nucleus with a significant H1X enrichment in nucleoli. Differential distribution patterns suggest concrete implications in genome functionality and translate into variant-specific functional consequences upon H1 depletion. Specifically, single or combined H1.2 depletion triggers a general chromatin decompaction, which is not observed when depleting H1.4 or H1X. Furthermore, we conducted the first systematic comparison of six somatic H1 variants in several human cell lines, including ChIP-Seq profiling of H1X in different cell types, which has only been mapped in T47D breast cancer cells up to date. Interestingly, certain H1 variants display universal distribution patterns, despite variations in H1 complement across cell lines. H1.2, H1.3, and H1.5 are consistently enriched at the nuclear periphery while H1X is more abundant at high-GC regions and present at nucleoli in all cell lines evaluated. We identified a recurring concomitant absence of H1.3 and H1.5, and this specific H1 complement is associated with a more peripheral distribution of H1.0 and H1.4 proteins, suggesting potential compensatory mechanisms between variants. Altogether, our study represents a comprehensive attempt to systematically characterize the repertoire of somatic H1 variants, their differential distribution in the human genome and their functional diversity.

Tethering of chromatin to scaffold structures, such as the nuclear lamina or the nucleolus, regulates genome conformation and ultimately, its function. Despite being highly abundant proteins in the nucleus, distribution of histone H1 variants within nuclear domains has not been explored. We have recently reported that H1 variants exhibit differential genomic distributions in T47D breast cancer cells. H1.0, H1.2, H1.3, and H1.5 are enriched at low-GC regions and B compartment while H1.4 and H1X are more abundant within high-GC and A compartment regions (Serna-Pujol et al., 2022). Moreover, a combined depletion of H1.2 and H1.4 leads to chromatin decompaction at the level of TADs (Serna-Pujol et al., 2022), demonstrating that H1 proteins are involved in maintaining genome structure. In this study, we profiled the differential nuclear distribution of six somatic H1 variants in T47D cells and other human cells lines, through imaging techniques, including super-resolution microscopy. We provide here the first systematic comparison of H1 variants distribution in multiple human cell lines.

In T47D cells, H1.2, H1.3, and H1.5 and to a lesser extent H1.0 are enriched toward nuclear periphery. On the other hand, H1X and H1.4 are distributed throughout the nucleus with H1X being highly enriched in nucleoli (Figure 1A). Super-resolution imaging of H1 variants reinforced these differential profiles and revealed that H1.2/H1.3/H1.5/H1.0 coincide more with DNA pattern compared to H1.4 and H1X (Figure 2A), confirming their segregation in two groups denoted by ChIP-Seq data. Both immunofluorescence and ChIP-Seq are performed on fixed cells and H1 are known to be highly mobile proteins. Thus, although our results demonstrate this variant-specific preferential distribution, it is unlikely that H1 variants are unable to dynamically bind other chromatin types.

Emerging evidence from super-resolution microscopy indicates that nucleosomes are grouped in heterogenous nanodomains termed ‘clutches’ (Ricci et al., 2015). Moreover, TADs represent structural chromatin folding units at the sub-megabase scale (Dixon et al., 2012; Nora et al., 2012; Sexton et al., 2012). We have shown that H1 variants form spatially separated nanodomains throughout the nucleus, visualized as a ‘punctuate’ signal by super-resolution imaging, but with the aforementioned differential variant-specific local enrichments. Similarly, super-resolution imaging of core histone H2B also present this clustered pattern in human fibroblasts (Ricci et al., 2015). It is important to mention that nucleosome clutches were originally defined using STORM technique (Ricci et al., 2015), whose resolution is higher than the one achieved by SRRF. For that reason, we favor the idea that nanodomains formed by H1 variants would be more equivalent to TADs or sub-TADs rather than to nucleosome clutches. In fact, shifts on the ChIP-Seq H1 variants distribution tend to coincide with TAD borders and H1 variants are more homogenous within the same TAD than between TADs (Serna-Pujol et al., 2021). This observation also highlights the relationship between H1 distribution and the structural properties of chromatin.

By conventional immunofluorescence, preferential localization of H1.0 with other ‘low-GC’ H1 variants over H1.4/H1X was observed (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). However, this preferential co-localization was not evidenced at the super-resolution level and all H1s co-localized similarly with H1.0 (Figure 2B). This observation may suggest that domains spatially arranged at the 3D level are homogeneously marked by a certain H1 variant and not by random H1 variants. Nevertheless, in a cell population those nanodomains could be marked by different H1 variants. This could explain why at single-cell level we lost preferential co-localization of ‘low-GC’ H1s with H1.0 (compared to H1.4/H1X) while by ChIP-Seq data, mega-base domains of ‘low-GC’ H1 variants coincide. If those nanodomains were homogeneously marked by the same H1 variant in the cell population, we would observe differential enrichments between H1 variants belonging to the same GC cluster, even at the mega-base level. This apparent intra-population ambiguity may be indicating a structural role of ‘low-GC’ H1 variants and emphasizes the existing partial redundancy among certain H1 variants.

H1.2, H1.3, and H1.5 are highly enriched at the nuclear periphery in T47D cells but also in all cell lines analyzed (Figures 1 and 5A, B). Super-resolution microscopy revealed that these H1 variants form an adjacent layer to lamina and highly co-localize with H3K9me2 (Figure 3A–C). H3K9me2 is not only a universal component of LADs, but also it is indispensable for peripheral heterochromatin anchoring to the nuclear lamina (Poleshko et al., 2019). Universal H1.2, H1.3, and H1.5 enrichment at nuclear periphery directly point to these H1 variants as conserved components of LADs, as has been described for H3K9me2. Furthermore, these H1 variants could be postulated as potential orchestrating factors for chromatin tethering to the lamina. Proper chromatin–lamina interactions are crucial to maintain chromatin dynamics (Briand and Collas, 2020; Chandra et al., 2015; Chang et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2018). LADs detachment through Lamin B1 KO in human cells led to abnormal segregation of chromosome territories and A/B compartments, as well as global chromatin decompaction (Chang et al., 2022). Actually, we have shown that H1.2 depletion in T47D cells also led to a global chromatin decompaction (Figure 4).

Interactions between the nuclear lamina and LADs are disrupted at early stages of mitosis and re-established upon mitotic exit. In general, mitosis involves large structural reorganization of chromatin (Imakaev et al., 2012) that is accompanied by eviction of multiple chromatin factors from DNA (Martínez-Balbás et al., 1995). On the other hand, factors that persist attached to chromatin, including multiple histone variants and histone modifications (Wang and Higgins, 2013), are suggested to act as spatial ‘bookmarks’. This is the case of H3K9me2, which is reported to safeguard positional information of LADs through mitosis, through a phospho-methyl switch (H3K9me2S10p) (Poleshko et al., 2019). Indeed, we have found that interphasic ‘low-GC’ H1 variants persist more attached to chromatin during mitosis, compared to ‘high-GC’ ones (Figure 2E, Figure 2—figure supplements 2 and 3). Moreover, H1.3 and H1.5, which are highly associated to LADs in interphase, persist in the peripheral layer of mitotic chromosomes, showing an analogous profile to the one reported for H3K9me2 (Poleshko et al., 2019). H1.2 attachment to mitotic chromatin is regulated by phosphorylation at early mitotic stages, but interestingly, H1.2 layer re-associates to the forming lamina upon mitotic exit. The strong similarities observed for H1.2, H1.3, and H1.5 with H3K9me2 in both interphase and mitosis suggest that these linker histones may also act as 3D positional ‘bookmarks’ of LADs.

We found that H1 variants may localize to nucleoli. Concretely, H1X and some phosphorylated H1s present different nucleolar distribution patterns (Figure 3F). H1X nucleolar enrichment has already been described in previous works (Mayor et al., 2015; Stoldt et al., 2007). In addition, other histone variants have been found at nucleoli, including testis-restricted H1T linker histone (Tani et al., 2016) or certain core histone variants (Jiang et al., 2021; Long et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2020). Importantly, nucleolar localization of H1X persists after inhibition of RNApol I by ActD (Figure 3—figure supplement 1D), which was also reported previously (Stoldt et al., 2007). These observations might suggest a more structural role of H1X in nucleoli rather than a more functional or regulatory one. On the contrary, H1.2-pT165 and H1.4-pT146 seem to execute a functional role, as the nucleolar distribution of these post-translationally modified H1 variants depends on functional nucleoli, with H1.4-pT146 being presumably associated to RNA pol I active transcription. The nucleolus is a membraneless organelle formed through liquid–liquid phase separation driven by multivalent interactions of its components (Lafontaine et al., 2021). Several molecular features are known drivers for phase separation, including highly intrinsically disordered regions (Shin and Brangwynne, 2017). Indeed, nucleolar proteome and specially proteins localized to the nucleolar rim are extremely disordered (Stenström et al., 2020). We found that nucleolar H1X is enriched, although not limited, at the nucleolar rim, adjacent to the inner side of NPM1 layer (Figure 3E). Histone H1 proteins have a well-known highly disordered structure and have been shown to phase separate in vitro (Gibson et al., 2019; Shakya et al., 2020; Turner et al., 2018). However, the functional relevance of H1 variants as promotors of phase separation in living cells has not been explored.

Proteomic studies in four human cell lines demonstrated that almost 1/3 of the candidate H1.0-binding proteins localized to nucleolus and were related to nucleolar functionality (Kalashnikova et al., 2013). Remarkably, the experiments were performed by pull-down of exogenous, chimeric HaloTag-H1.0 protein. Importantly, direct H1.0 nucleolar localization or rRNA metabolism alterations upon H1.0 depletion were not reported. In contrast, our results show that H1.0 is depleted from nucleoli in all cell lines analyzed (Figure 5A, B). We also checked that H1.0 does not redistribute to nucleoli upon H1X depletion in T47D cells (data not shown). Nevertheless, we cannot discard that H1.0 interacts with nucleolus-related proteins, as it can be enriched at perinucleolar heterochromatin or NADs, as observed in T47D cells.

We have explored how H1 variants depletion affect chromatin structure through super-resolution imaging of DNA (Figure 4). In T47D cells, combined depletion of H1.2 and H1.4 (i.e. multi-H1 KD) caused a global chromatin decompaction. This is in agreement with previously generated ATAC-Seq experiments in these cells, which pointed to a genome-wide gain of chromatin accessibility. Accordingly, Hi-C data analysis in multi-H1 KD cells also showed more de-compacted TAD structures (Serna-Pujol et al., 2022). In mice, multiple H1 variants deficiency has been also associated to chromatin decompaction (Willcockson et al., 2021; Yusufova et al., 2021). However, the differential contribution of individual H1 variants to chromatin structure has not been explored before. Interestingly, analysis of T47D single KDs revealed that single H1.2 depletion also led to chromatin decompaction, but not as pronounced as multi-H1 KD. On the contrary, single depletion of H1.4 or H1X did not cause a significant alteration of chromatin structure. These observations suggest that the structural defects cannot be explained just for the total H1 reduction. Indeed, both H1.2 and H1.4 proteins contribution to total H1 content is the same in T47D, estimated to be 23–24% in each case (Sancho et al., 2008). Thus, H1 variant-specific functionality, related to their differential genomic distribution seems to play a role. These results could support the putative structural function of H1.2 (and maybe also for the rest of ‘low-GC’ variants). In multi-H1 KD cells, total H1 content is reduced ≈30% and chromatin decompaction is more drastic compared to single H1.2 depletion. Due to the fact that H1.2 and H1.4 occupy different genomic regions, the more drastic effects on decompaction in multi-H1 KD cells seem to be due, at least in part, to the additive depletion of two H1 variants with non-redundant functions. In the whole, super-resolution microscopy of DNA enables us to decipher global compaction changes upon several H1 KDs conditions and revealed that H1 variants have specific roles in shaping genome architecture. Moreover, both the total H1 reduction but also the H1 variant repertoire have an impact on the global chromatin compaction homeostasis.

H1 complement is known to be heterogeneous among cell types. We have observed that H1X is expressed in all cell lines tested, as it was previously reported with H1.2 and H1.4 (Millán-Ariño et al., 2016). Interestingly, the simultaneous lack of H1.3 and H1.5 is found recurrently and seems to be mediated by DNA methylation (Figure 5—figure supplements 1 and 2). On the contrary, whether H1 variants are universally distributed or display cell-type-specific patterns is not well understood. H1 variants are thought to be specifically distributed among different cell lines, but this presumption comes from combining various pieces of evidence from different publications (Cao et al., 2013; Izzo et al., 2013; Li et al., 2012; Millán-Ariño et al., 2014; Torres et al., 2016). They mostly address the analysis of a single H1 variant in a particular model or cell line. Moreover, a comparative study of the distribution of a single H1 variant in different cell models has not been performed so far. In the whole, the direct comparison of these studies is biased by the different origin of the data and the varied methodologies used, which in many cases involve the over-expression of H1 variants.

We performed the first systematic analysis of six endogenous variants in different cancer cell lines. Our data unveil, for the first time, universal nuclear patterns exhibited by specific H1 variants. Immunofluorescence experiments revealed that H1.2, H1.3, and H1.5 are universally enriched toward nuclear periphery. H1.0 and H1.4 are distributed throughout the whole nucleus but they show a more peripheral distribution in a subset of cell lines lacking H1.3 and H1.5 (Figure 5). H1X is also distributed throughout the whole nucleus in all cell lines tested with a variable relative nucleolar enrichment. H1.0 and H1.4 re-distribution when H1.3 and H1.5 proteins are absent contrast to the behavior observed in T47D multi-H1 KD. Upon multi-H1 KD, H1 variants distribution is overall robust, with no significant changes at the nuclear level (Serna-Pujol et al., 2022). These represent two different H1-compromised scenarios. In the first one, H1.3 and H1.5 silencing is intrinsically linked to the cell line identity. On the contrary, multi-H1 KD cells represent an inducible H1.2 and H1.4 depletion, abnormal in T47D cells. Our results suggest that compensatory mechanisms between different H1 variants, in terms of distribution, may be limited when perturbing H1 levels but achieved when H1 repertoire is ‘naturally’ compromised. Regarding the functional outcomes of H1-restriction, multi-H1 KD cells are characterized by a robust interferon response, triggered by the expression of repetitive elements (Izquierdo-Bouldstridge et al., 2017). Notably, RT-qPCR experiments indicated that cells lacking H1.3 and H1.5 exhibit a high basal expression of the interferon signature and some repeats (Figure 5—figure supplement 5). Whether the concurrent loss of H1.3 and H1.5 represents an acquired adaptive mechanism in certain cancer cells, as well as the implications of the immune response triggered by H1 loss are interesting subjects for study.

In summary, our findings highlight the differential distribution of H1 variants within nuclear domains and their variant-specific role on chromatin (Figure 6). Moreover, we showed that H1 variants present a potentially more uniform distribution among cell lines than previously anticipated, particularly for certain variants.

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

ChIP-Seq data of H1X in five different cancer cell lines have been deposited in NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and is accessible through GEO Series accession number GSE236678. ChIP-Seq of H1.3 in T47D cells is available through the accession number GSE236878.

1. 1. Jordan A
   2. Salinas M
   3. Serna N

   (2023) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE236678. Genome-wide profiling of linker histone variant H1X in five different cancer cell lines.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE236678
2. 1. Jordan A
   2. Salinas M
   3. Serna N

   (2023) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE236878. Genome-wide profiling of linker histone variant H1.3 in T47D-MTVL cancer cell line.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE236878

1. 1. Bersaglieri C
   2. Kresoja-Rakic J
   3. Gupta S
   4. Bär D
   5. Kuzyakiv R
   6. Panatta M
   7. Santoro R

   (2022) Genome-wide maps of nucleolus interactions reveal distinct layers of repressive chromatin domains

   Nature Communications 13:1483.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29146-2

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Boyle S
   2. Gilchrist S
   3. Bridger JM
   4. Mahy NL
   5. Ellis JA
   6. Bickmore WA

   (2001) The spatial organization of human chromosomes within the nuclei of normal and emerin-mutant cells

   Human Molecular Genetics 10:211–219.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/10.3.211

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Briand N
   2. Collas P

   (2020) Lamina-associated domains: peripheral matters and internal affairs

   Genome Biology 21:85.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02003-5

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Burger K
   2. Mühl B
   3. Harasim T
   4. Rohrmoser M
   5. Malamoussi A
   6. Orban M
   7. Kellner M
   8. Gruber-Eber A
   9. Kremmer E
   10. Hölzel M
   11. Eick D

   (2010) Chemotherapeutic drugs inhibit ribosome biogenesis at various levels

   The Journal of Biological Chemistry 285:12416–12425.

   https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.074211

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Cao K
   2. Lailler N
   3. Zhang Y
   4. Kumar A
   5. Uppal K
   6. Liu Z
   7. Lee EK
   8. Wu H
   9. Medrzycki M
   10. Pan C
   11. Ho PY
   12. Cooper GP
   13. Dong X
   14. Bock C
   15. Bouhassira EE
   16. Fan Y

   (2013) High-resolution mapping of H1 linker histone variants in embryonic stem cells

   PLOS Genetics 9:e1003417.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003417

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Chandra T
   2. Ewels PA
   3. Schoenfelder S
   4. Furlan-Magaril M
   5. Wingett SW
   6. Kirschner K
   7. Thuret JY
   8. Andrews S
   9. Fraser P
   10. Reik W

   (2015) Global reorganization of the nuclear landscape in senescent cells

   Cell Reports 10:471–483.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.12.055

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Chang L
   2. Li M
   3. Shao S
   4. Li C
   5. Ai S
   6. Xue B
   7. Hou Y
   8. Zhang Y
   9. Li R
   10. Fan X
   11. He A
   12. Li C
   13. Sun Y

   (2022) Nuclear peripheral chromatin-lamin B1 interaction is required for global integrity of chromatin architecture and dynamics in human cells

   Protein & Cell 13:258–280.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-020-00794-8

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cremer T
   2. Cremer C

   (2001) Chromosome territories, nuclear architecture and gene regulation in mammalian cells

   Nature Reviews. Genetics 2:292–301.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/35066075

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Culley S
   2. Tosheva KL
   3. Matos Pereira P
   4. Henriques R

   (2018) SRRF: Universal live-cell super-resolution microscopy

   The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology 101:74–79.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2018.05.014

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Dillinger S
    2. Straub T
    3. Németh A

    (2017) Nucleolus association of chromosomal domains is largely maintained in cellular senescence despite massive nuclear reorganisation

    PLOS ONE 12:e0178821.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178821

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Dixon JR
    2. Selvaraj S
    3. Yue F
    4. Kim A
    5. Li Y
    6. Shen Y
    7. Hu M
    8. Liu JS
    9. Ren B

    (2012) Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions

    Nature 485:376–380.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11082

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Fyodorov DV
    2. Zhou B-R
    3. Skoultchi AI
    4. Bai Y

    (2018) Emerging roles of linker histones in regulating chromatin structure and function

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 19:192–206.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2017.94

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Geeven G
    2. Zhu Y
    3. Kim BJ
    4. Bartholdy BA
    5. Yang S-M
    6. Macfarlan TS
    7. Gifford WD
    8. Pfaff SL
    9. Verstegen MJAM
    10. Pinto H
    11. Vermunt MW
    12. Creyghton MP
    13. Wijchers PJ
    14. Stamatoyannopoulos JA
    15. Skoultchi AI
    16. de Laat W

    (2015) Local compartment changes and regulatory landscape alterations in histone H1-depleted cells

    Genome Biology 16:289.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0857-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Gibson BA
    2. Doolittle LK
    3. Schneider MWG
    4. Jensen LE
    5. Gamarra N
    6. Henry L
    7. Gerlich DW
    8. Redding S
    9. Rosen MK

    (2019) Organization of chromatin by intrinsic and regulated phase separation

    Cell 179:470–484.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Girelli G
    2. Custodio J
    3. Kallas T
    4. Agostini F
    5. Wernersson E
    6. Spanjaard B
    7. Mota A
    8. Kolbeinsdottir S
    9. Gelali E
    10. Crosetto N
    11. Bienko M

    (2020) GPSeq reveals the radial organization of chromatin in the cell nucleus

    Nature Biotechnology 38:1184–1193.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0519-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Guelen L
    2. Pagie L
    3. Brasset E
    4. Meuleman W
    5. Faza MB
    6. Talhout W
    7. Eussen BH
    8. de Klein A
    9. Wessels L
    10. de Laat W
    11. van Steensel B

    (2008) Domain organization of human chromosomes revealed by mapping of nuclear lamina interactions

    Nature 453:948–951.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06947

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Gustafsson N
    2. Culley S
    3. Ashdown G
    4. Owen DM
    5. Pereira PM
    6. Henriques R

    (2016) Fast live-cell conventional fluorophore nanoscopy with ImageJ through super-resolution radial fluctuations

    Nature Communications 7:12471.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12471

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Harr JC
    2. Luperchio TR
    3. Wong X
    4. Cohen E
    5. Wheelan SJ
    6. Reddy KL

    (2015) Directed targeting of chromatin to the nuclear lamina is mediated by chromatin state and A-type lamins

    The Journal of Cell Biology 208:33–52.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201405110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Imakaev M
    2. Fudenberg G
    3. McCord RP
    4. Naumova N
    5. Goloborodko A
    6. Lajoie BR
    7. Dekker J
    8. Mirny LA

    (2012) Iterative correction of Hi-C data reveals hallmarks of chromosome organization

    Nature Methods 9:999–1003.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2148

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Izquierdo-Bouldstridge A
    2. Bustillos A
    3. Bonet-Costa C
    4. Aribau-Miralbés P
    5. García-Gomis D
    6. Dabad M
    7. Esteve-Codina A
    8. Pascual-Reguant L
    9. Peiró S
    10. Esteller M
    11. Murtha M
    12. Millán-Ariño L
    13. Jordan A

    (2017) Histone H1 depletion triggers an interferon response in cancer cells via activation of heterochromatic repeats

    Nucleic Acids Research 45:11622–11642.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx746

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Izzo A
    2. Kamieniarz-Gdula K
    3. Ramírez F
    4. Noureen N
    5. Kind J
    6. Manke T
    7. van Steensel B
    8. Schneider R

    (2013) The genomic landscape of the somatic linker histone subtypes H1.1 to H1.5 in human cells

    Cell Reports 3:2142–2154.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2013.05.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Jiang X
    2. Wen J
    3. Paver E
    4. Wu Y-H
    5. Sun G
    6. Bullman A
    7. Dahlstrom JE
    8. Tremethick DJ
    9. Soboleva TA

    (2021) H2A.B is a cancer/testis factor involved in the activation of ribosome biogenesis in Hodgkin lymphoma

    EMBO Reports 22:e52462.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202152462

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Jost KL
    2. Bertulat B
    3. Cardoso MC

    (2012) Heterochromatin and gene positioning: inside, outside, any side?

    Chromosoma 121:555–563.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00412-012-0389-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Kalashnikova AA
    2. Winkler DD
    3. McBryant SJ
    4. Henderson RK
    5. Herman JA
    6. DeLuca JG
    7. Luger K
    8. Prenni JE
    9. Hansen JC

    (2013) Linker histone H1.0 interacts with an extensive network of proteins found in the nucleolus

    Nucleic Acids Research 41:4026–4035.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Karolchik D

    (2004) The UCSC Table Browser data retrieval tool

    Nucleic Acids Research 32:493D–496.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh103

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Kind J
    2. Pagie L
    3. Ortabozkoyun H
    4. Boyle S
    5. de Vries SS
    6. Janssen H
    7. Amendola M
    8. Nolen LD
    9. Bickmore WA
    10. van Steensel B

    (2013) Single-cell dynamics of genome-nuclear lamina interactions

    Cell 153:178–192.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Lafontaine DLJ
    2. Riback JA
    3. Bascetin R
    4. Brangwynne CP

    (2021) The nucleolus as a multiphase liquid condensate

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 22:165–182.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-020-0272-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Lennox RW
    2. Cohen LH

    (1983) The histone H1 complements of dividing and nondividing cells of the mouse

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 258:262–268.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9258(18)33251-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Li JY
    2. Patterson M
    3. Mikkola HKA
    4. Lowry WE
    5. Kurdistani SK

    (2012) Dynamic distribution of linker histone H1.5 in cellular differentiation

    PLOS Genetics 8:e1002879.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002879

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Lieberman-Aiden E
    2. van Berkum NL
    3. Williams L
    4. Imakaev M
    5. Ragoczy T
    6. Telling A
    7. Amit I
    8. Lajoie BR
    9. Sabo PJ
    10. Dorschner MO
    11. Sandstrom R
    12. Bernstein B
    13. Bender MA
    14. Groudine M
    15. Gnirke A
    16. Stamatoyannopoulos J
    17. Mirny LA
    18. Lander ES
    19. Dekker J

    (2009) Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome

    Science 326:289–293.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1181369

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Long M
    2. Sun X
    3. Shi W
    4. Yanru A
    5. Leung STC
    6. Ding D
    7. Cheema MS
    8. MacPherson N
    9. Nelson CJ
    10. Ausio J
    11. Yan Y
    12. Ishibashi T

    (2019) A novel histone H4 variant H4G regulates rDNA transcription in breast cancer

    Nucleic Acids Research 47:8399–8409.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz547

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Martin L
    2. Vicario C
    3. Castells-García Á
    4. Lakadamyali M
    5. Neguembor MV
    6. Cosma MP

    (2021) A protocol to quantify chromatin compaction with confocal and super-resolution microscopy in cultured cells

    STAR Protocols 2:100865.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xpro.2021.100865

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Martínez-Balbás MA
    2. Dey A
    3. Rabindran SK
    4. Ozato K
    5. Wu C

    (1995) Displacement of sequence-specific transcription factors from mitotic chromatin

    Cell 83:29–38.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(95)90231-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Martire S
    2. Banaszynski LA

    (2020) The roles of histone variants in fine-tuning chromatin organization and function

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 21:522–541.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-020-0262-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Mayor R
    2. Izquierdo-Bouldstridge A
    3. Millán-Ariño L
    4. Bustillos A
    5. Sampaio C
    6. Luque N
    7. Jordan A

    (2015) Genome distribution of replication-independent histone H1 variants shows H1.0 associated with nucleolar domains and H1X associated with RNA polymerase II-enriched regions

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 290:7474–7491.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M114.617324

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Meergans T
    2. Albig W
    3. Doenecke D

    (1997) Varied expression patterns of human H1 histone genes in different cell lines

    DNA and Cell Biology 16:1041–1049.

    https://doi.org/10.1089/dna.1997.16.1041

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Millán-Ariño L
    2. Islam A
    3. Izquierdo-Bouldstridge A
    4. Mayor R
    5. Terme JM
    6. Luque N
    7. Sancho M
    8. López-Bigas N
    9. Jordan A

    (2014) Mapping of six somatic linker histone H1 variants in human breast cancer cells uncovers specific features of H1.2

    Nucleic Acids Research 42:4474–4493.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku079

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Millán-Ariño L
    2. Izquierdo-Bouldstridge A
    3. Jordan A

    (2016) Specificities and genomic distribution of somatic mammalian histone H1 subtypes

    Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1859:510–519.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagrm.2015.10.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Navarro Gonzalez J
    2. Zweig AS
    3. Speir ML
    4. Schmelter D
    5. Rosenbloom KR
    6. Raney BJ
    7. Powell CC
    8. Nassar LR
    9. Maulding ND
    10. Lee CM
    11. Lee BT
    12. Hinrichs AS
    13. Fyfe AC
    14. Fernandes JD
    15. Diekhans M
    16. Clawson H
    17. Casper J
    18. Benet-Pagès A
    19. Barber GP
    20. Haussler D
    21. Kuhn RM
    22. Haeussler M
    23. Kent WJ

    (2021) The UCSC Genome Browser database: 2021 update

    Nucleic Acids Research 49:D1046–D1057.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa1070

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Neguembor MV
    2. Martin L
    3. Castells-García Á
    4. Gómez-García PA
    5. Vicario C
    6. Carnevali D
    7. AlHaj Abed J
    8. Granados A
    9. Sebastian-Perez R
    10. Sottile F
    11. Solon J
    12. Wu C-T
    13. Lakadamyali M
    14. Cosma MP

    (2021) Transcription-mediated supercoiling regulates genome folding and loop formation

    Molecular Cell 81:3065–3081.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2021.06.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Németh A
    2. Conesa A
    3. Santoyo-Lopez J
    4. Medina I
    5. Montaner D
    6. Péterfia B
    7. Solovei I
    8. Cremer T
    9. Dopazo J
    10. Längst G

    (2010) Initial genomics of the human nucleolus

    PLOS Genetics 6:e1000889.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000889

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Nora EP
    2. Lajoie BR
    3. Schulz EG
    4. Giorgetti L
    5. Okamoto I
    6. Servant N
    7. Piolot T
    8. van Berkum NL
    9. Meisig J
    10. Sedat J
    11. Gribnau J
    12. Barillot E
    13. Blüthgen N
    14. Dekker J
    15. Heard E

    (2012) Spatial partitioning of the regulatory landscape of the X-inactivation centre

    Nature 485:381–385.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11049

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Pang MYH
    2. Sun X
    3. Ausió J
    4. Ishibashi T

    (2020) Histone H4 variant, H4G, drives ribosomal RNA transcription and breast cancer cell proliferation by loosening nucleolar chromatin structure

    Journal of Cellular Physiology 235:9601–9608.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.29770

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Parseghian MH
    2. Hamkalo BA

    (2001) A compendium of the histone H1 family of somatic subtypes: an elusive cast of characters and their characteristics

    Biochemistry and Cell Biology 79:289–304.

    https://doi.org/10.1139/o01-099

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Peng T
    2. Hou Y
    3. Meng H
    4. Cao Y
    5. Wang X
    6. Jia L
    7. Chen Q
    8. Zheng Y
    9. Sun Y
    10. Chen H
    11. Li T
    12. Li C

    (2023) Mapping nucleolus-associated chromatin interactions using nucleolus Hi-C reveals pattern of heterochromatin interactions

    Nature Communications 14:350.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36021-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Piña B
    2. Suau P

    (1987) Changes in the proportions of histone H1 subtypes in brain cortical neurons

    FEBS Letters 210:161–164.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(87)81328-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Poleshko A
    2. Smith CL
    3. Nguyen SC
    4. Sivaramakrishnan P
    5. Wong KG
    6. Murray JI
    7. Lakadamyali M
    8. Joyce EF
    9. Jain R
    10. Epstein JA

    (2019) H3K9me2 orchestrates inheritance of spatial positioning of peripheral heterochromatin through mitosis

    eLife 8:e49278.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49278

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Quinlan AR
    2. Hall IM

    (2010) BEDTools: A flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features

    Bioinformatics 26:841–842.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. Software

    1. Rebollo E

    (2019) ringIntensityDistribution, version 8aa19e7

    GitHub.

    https://github.com/MolecularImagingPlatformIBMB/ringIntensityDistribution
50. 1. Reinhold WC
    2. Varma S
    3. Sunshine M
    4. Elloumi F
    5. Ofori-Atta K
    6. Lee S
    7. Trepel JB
    8. Meltzer PS
    9. Doroshow JH
    10. Pommier Y

    (2019) RNA sequencing of the nci-60: integration into cellminer and cellminer CDB

    Cancer Research 79:3514–3524.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-2047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Ricci MA
    2. Manzo C
    3. García-Parajo MF
    4. Lakadamyali M
    5. Cosma MP

    (2015) Chromatin fibers are formed by heterogeneous groups of nucleosomes in vivo

    Cell 160:1145–1158.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.01.054

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Sancho M
    2. Diani E
    3. Beato M
    4. Jordan A

    (2008) Depletion of human histone H1 variants uncovers specific roles in gene expression and cell growth

    PLOS Genetics 4:e1000227.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000227

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Serna-Pujol N
    2. Salinas-Pena M
    3. Mugianesi F
    4. Lopez-Anguita N
    5. Torrent-Llagostera F
    6. Izquierdo-Bouldstridge A
    7. Marti-Renom MA
    8. Jordan A

    (2021) TADs enriched in histone H1.2 strongly overlap with the B compartment, inaccessible chromatin, and AT-rich Giemsa bands

    The FEBS Journal 288:1989–2013.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15549

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Serna-Pujol N
    2. Salinas-Pena M
    3. Mugianesi F
    4. Le Dily F
    5. Marti-Renom MA
    6. Jordan A

    (2022) Coordinated changes in gene expression, H1 variant distribution and genome 3D conformation in response to H1 depletion

    Nucleic Acids Research 50:3892–3910.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac226

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Sexton T
    2. Yaffe E
    3. Kenigsberg E
    4. Bantignies F
    5. Leblanc B
    6. Hoichman M
    7. Parrinello H
    8. Tanay A
    9. Cavalli G

    (2012) Three-dimensional folding and functional organization principles of the Drosophila genome

    Cell 148:458–472.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Shakya A
    2. Park S
    3. Rana N
    4. King JT

    (2020) Liquid-liquid phase separation of histone proteins in cells: role in chromatin organization

    Biophysical Journal 118:753–764.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2019.12.022

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Shin Y
    2. Brangwynne CP

    (2017) Liquid phase condensation in cell physiology and disease

    Science 357:eaaf4382.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf4382

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Solovei I
    2. Thanisch K
    3. Feodorova Y

    (2016) How to rule the nucleus: divide et impera

    Current Opinion in Cell Biology 40:47–59.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2016.02.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Stenström L
    2. Mahdessian D
    3. Gnann C
    4. Cesnik AJ
    5. Ouyang W
    6. Leonetti MD
    7. Uhlén M
    8. Cuylen-Haering S
    9. Thul PJ
    10. Lundberg E

    (2020) Mapping the nucleolar proteome reveals a spatiotemporal organization related to intrinsic protein disorder

    Molecular Systems Biology 16:e9469.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.20209469

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Stoldt S
    2. Wenzel D
    3. Schulze E
    4. Doenecke D
    5. Happel N

    (2007) G1 phase-dependent nucleolar accumulation of human histone H1x

    Biology of the Cell 99:541–552.

    https://doi.org/10.1042/bc20060117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Tani R
    2. Hayakawa K
    3. Tanaka S
    4. Shiota K

    (2016) Linker histone variant H1T targets rDNA repeats

    Epigenetics 11:288–302.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/15592294.2016.1159369

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Terme J-M
    2. Sesé B
    3. Millán-Ariño L
    4. Mayor R
    5. Belmonte JCI
    6. Barrero MJ
    7. Jordan A

    (2011) Histone H1 variants are differentially expressed and incorporated into chromatin during differentiation and reprogramming to pluripotency

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 286:35347–35357.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.281923

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Torres CM
    2. Biran A
    3. Burney MJ
    4. Patel H
    5. Henser-Brownhill T
    6. Cohen AHS
    7. Li Y
    8. Ben-Hamo R
    9. Nye E
    10. Spencer-Dene B
    11. Chakravarty P
    12. Efroni S
    13. Matthews N
    14. Misteli T
    15. Meshorer E
    16. Scaffidi P

    (2016) The linker histone H1.0 generates epigenetic and functional intratumor heterogeneity

    Science 353:aaf1644.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf1644

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Turner AL
    2. Watson M
    3. Wilkins OG
    4. Cato L
    5. Travers A
    6. Thomas JO
    7. Stott K

    (2018) Highly disordered histone H1-DNA model complexes and their condensates

    PNAS 115:11964–11969.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805943115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Wang F
    2. Higgins JMG

    (2013) Histone modifications and mitosis: countermarks, landmarks, and bookmarks

    Trends in Cell Biology 23:175–184.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2012.11.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Willcockson MA
    2. Healton SE
    3. Weiss CN
    4. Bartholdy BA
    5. Botbol Y
    6. Mishra LN
    7. Sidhwani DS
    8. Wilson TJ
    9. Pinto HB
    10. Maron MI
    11. Skalina KA
    12. Toro LN
    13. Zhao J
    14. Lee CH
    15. Hou H
    16. Yusufova N
    17. Meydan C
    18. Osunsade A
    19. David Y
    20. Cesarman E
    21. Melnick AM
    22. Sidoli S
    23. Garcia BA
    24. Edelmann W
    25. Macian F
    26. Skoultchi AI

    (2021) H1 histones control the epigenetic landscape by local chromatin compaction

    Nature 589:293–298.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-3032-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Yusufova N
    2. Kloetgen A
    3. Teater M
    4. Osunsade A
    5. Camarillo JM
    6. Chin CR
    7. Doane AS
    8. Venters BJ
    9. Portillo-Ledesma S
    10. Conway J
    11. Phillip JM
    12. Elemento O
    13. Scott DW
    14. Béguelin W
    15. Licht JD
    16. Kelleher NL
    17. Staudt LM
    18. Skoultchi AI
    19. Keogh MC
    20. Apostolou E
    21. Mason CE
    22. Imielinski M
    23. Schlick T
    24. David Y
    25. Tsirigos A
    26. Allis CD
    27. Soshnev AA
    28. Cesarman E
    29. Melnick AM

    (2021) Histone H1 loss drives lymphoma by disrupting 3D chromatin architecture

    Nature 589:299–305.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-3017-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Zheng Y
    2. John S
    3. Pesavento JJ
    4. Schultz-Norton JR
    5. Schiltz RL
    6. Baek S
    7. Nardulli AM
    8. Hager GL
    9. Kelleher NL
    10. Mizzen CA

    (2010) Histone H1 phosphorylation is associated with transcription by RNA polymerases I and II

    Journal of Cell Biology 189:407–415.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201001148

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Zheng X
    2. Hu J
    3. Yue S
    4. Kristiani L
    5. Kim M
    6. Sauria M
    7. Taylor J
    8. Kim Y
    9. Zheng Y

    (2018) Lamins organize the global three-dimensional genome from the nuclear periphery

    Molecular Cell 71:802–815.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2018.05.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Monica Salinas-Pena

   Molecular Biology Institute of Barcelona (IBMB-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Visualization

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Elena Rebollo

   Molecular Biology Institute of Barcelona (IBMB-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain

   Contribution

   Data curation, Software, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Albert Jordan

   Molecular Biology Institute of Barcelona (IBMB-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   ajvbmc@ibmb.csic.es

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3970-8693

• 547

  views

• 54

  downloads

• 0

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.