Polymer-physics simulations compared against single-molecule microscopy and bulk Hi-C data showed that, in two 2 Mb human loci (IMR90 and HCT116 cells), a polymer model combining loop extrusion (LE) with a strings-and-binders phase-separation mechanism (LE+SBS) gives the best description of single-cell chromatin conformations, implying that the two dominant classes of folding mechanisms can co-exist on the same DNA molecule. Whether this co-existence is a general principle of chromosome architecture or depends on locus, cell type, and chromatin state; which specific proteins act as the diffusing binders mediating the effective phase-separation interactions; and whether the two mechanisms operate independently or synergistically — and with what energetic or regulatory advantage — all remain unresolved. Follow-up work through 2026 has extended polymer modeling to additional loci, traced single-allele chromatin folding across cell types, and modeled the interplay between compartmentalization and motor-driven extrusion with conflicting conclusions, but none of the three strands has been settled. The problem is to establish, by combined single-molecule imaging, perturbation experiments, and predictive polymer modeling, whether and how loop extrusion and polymer phase separation jointly shape chromosome architecture.

Background

The three-dimensional organization of chromatin — the complex of DNA and histone proteins that makes up chromosomes — is mapped at scale by chromosome-conformation-capture assays such as Hi-C, which measure contact frequencies between pairs of genomic sites averaged over millions of cells. Hi-C revealed that mammalian genomes are partitioned into topologically associating domains (TADs), megabase-scale intervals whose internal contacts are far more frequent than contacts across their borders (Rao et al. 2014), and into larger A/B compartments that segregate active from inactive chromatin. Two broad classes of physical mechanism have been proposed to explain this organization. In the loop-extrusion model, ring-shaped motor proteins (the cohesin complex in interphase) processively extrude growing DNA loops until they stall at boundary elements bound by the CTCF protein, which accounts for TAD borders, loop anchors, and the loss of TADs upon cohesin depletion (Sanborn et al. 2015; Fudenberg et al. 2016). In phase-separation models, exemplified by the strings-and-binders switch (SBS) model, chromatin is represented as a polymer carrying binding sites for cognate diffusing molecular binders; above a threshold binder concentration or affinity the chain undergoes a polymer phase separation into compact globules corresponding to epigenetically homogeneous domains, which accounts for TAD-like domains, compartments, and single-cell structural variability (Barbieri et al. 2012). The two mechanisms make different molecular demands — one consumes ATP through motor proteins, the other is driven by equilibrium thermodynamics — and the field long treated them as competing explanations. Multiplexed super-resolution fluorescence in situ hybridization ('chromatin tracing') made it possible to reconstruct the 3D paths of individual copies of a locus in single cells (Bintu et al. 2018), providing the single-molecule data needed to discriminate the models beyond ensemble-averaged contact maps. Conte et al. (2022) compared loop-extrusion (LE), optimized loop-extrusion (eLE), SBS, and combined LE+SBS polymer models of two 2 Mb human loci (chr21:28–30 Mb in IMR90 fibroblasts and chr21:34.6–37.1 Mb in HCT116 colorectal-cancer cells) against both bulk Hi-C and independent single-molecule microscopy, including higher-order three-locus contacts. The combined LE+SBS model gave the overall best and statistically distinguishable description, supporting the view that loop extrusion and polymer phase separation can co-exist in single molecules. The authors noted, however, that their conclusion rests on two loci and two cell types; that model agreement could still improve by refining interaction potentials, motor properties, and binder parameters, with unknown effect on the ranking of mechanisms; that other folding processes, such as heterochromatin adsorption to the nuclear lamina (the protein meshwork lining the inner nuclear membrane) or transcription-induced supercoiling, were not included; that the binder types in the SBS model correlate only with combinations of chromatin marks (CTCF/cohesin, H3K4me3, H3K4me1) rather than identified proteins; and that the complementary advantages of the two mechanisms — extrusion for TAD borders and pointwise strong loops, phase separation for stable segregation of domains — remained a speculation rather than an established synergy.

Problem Statement

Establish whether the co-existence of loop extrusion and polymer phase separation demonstrated at the single-molecule level in two human loci is a general principle of chromosome architecture, and determine its mechanistic and molecular basis. The question has three linked components, all posed by the source study and unresolved by subsequent literature: (1) Generality — test, across additional genomic loci, cell types, chromatin states, and nuclear environments, whether combined loop-extrusion plus phase-separation models are required to account for single-molecule chromatin conformations, or whether the balance of mechanisms is instead locus- and state-dependent; this includes incorporating additional folding processes, such as heterochromatin adsorption to the nuclear lamina and transcription-induced supercoiling, whose interplay with extrusion and phase separation remains unmodeled. (2) Molecular identity — identify the specific proteins that act as the diffusing binders mediating the effective phase-separation interactions at loci where the mechanism operates. (3) Independence versus synergy — determine whether loop extrusion and phase separation operate independently on the chromatin fiber or functionally interact (for example, whether extrusion primes the chain for phase separation or vice versa), and what energetic or regulatory advantages their co-existence confers beyond redundancy. The three components jointly support one overarching objective: a mechanistic account of how the two dominant folding mechanisms combine to shape chromosome architecture. A resolution of the problem requires all three components: establishing any one of them alone — for instance, extending the model comparison to a single further locus, proposing candidate diffusing binders, or demonstrating an interaction in one setting — leaves the task unresolved, and the overarching mechanistic account is obtained only once the generality of the co-existence, the molecular identity of the binders, and the independence-versus-synergy question have all been determined. The deliverable for component (1) is the determination of whether the co-existence is a general principle or is locus- and state-dependent, obtained by the model comparison across further loci, cell types, and chromatin states with the additional folding processes included, rather than an exhaustive genome-wide survey.

References

  1. Conte M, Irani E, Chiariello AM, Abraham A, Bianco S, Esposito A, Nicodemi M. Loop-extrusion and polymer phase-separation can co-exist at the single-molecule level to shape chromatin folding. Nature Communications 13, 4070 (2022). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-31856-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31856-6 (originally posted as bioRxiv preprint, DOI: 10.1101/2021.11.02.466589)
  2. Rao SSP, Huntley MH, Durand NC, Stamenova EK, Bochkov ID, Robinson JT, Sanborn AL, Machol I, Omer AD, Lander ES, Aiden EL. A 3D Map of the Human Genome at Kilobase Resolution Reveals Principles of Chromatin Looping. Cell 159, 1665–1680 (2014). DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.021
  3. Sanborn AL, Rao SSP, Huang S-C, Durand NC, Huntley MH, Jewett AI, Bochkov ID, Chinnappan D, Cutkosky A, Li J, Geeting KP, Gnirke A, Melnikov A, McKenna D, Stamenova EK, Lander ES, Aiden EL. Chromatin extrusion explains key features of loop and domain formation in wild-type and engineered genomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (47), E6456–E6465 (2015). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1518552112. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518552112
  4. Fudenberg G, Imakaev M, Lu C, Goloborodko A, Abdennur N, Mirny LA. Formation of Chromosomal Domains by Loop Extrusion. Cell Reports 15, 2038–2049 (2016). DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.04.085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.04.085
  5. Barbieri M, Chotalia M, Fraser JA, Lavitas L-M, Dostie J, Pombo A, Nicodemi M. Complexity of chromatin folding is captured by the strings and binders switch model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 16173–16178 (2012). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1204799109. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1204799109
  6. Bintu B, Mateo LJ, Su J-H, Sinnott-Armstrong NA, Parker M, Kinrot S, Yamaya K, Boettiger AN, Zhuang X. Super-resolution chromatin tracing reveals domains and cooperative interactions in single cells. Science 362, eaau1783 (2018). DOI: 10.1126/science.aau1783. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau1783
  7. Conte M, Abraham A, Esposito A, Yang L, Gibcus JH, Parsi KM, Vercellone F, Fontana A, Di Pierno F, Dekker J, Nicodemi M. Polymer Physics Models Reveal Structural Folding Features of Single-Molecule Gene Chromatin Conformations. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25, 10215 (2024). DOI: 10.3390/ijms251810215. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms251810215
  8. Messina O, Fiche J-B, Ganesh G, Elkhoury Youhanna C, Kemkem Y, Mesnager A, Ferrer J, Villalba A, Scharfmann R, Akerman İ, Hodson DJ, Schaeffer M, Nollmann M. Single-allele chromatin folding is organized by recurrent motifs that are reweighted across cell types and states. bioRxiv 2024.09.18.613689 (2024). DOI: 10.1101/2024.09.18.613689. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.18.613689
  9. Dekker J, Oksuz BA, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Minsk MK, Kuang S, Yang L, Gibcus JH, Krietenstein N, Rando OJ, Xu J, Janssens DH, Henikoff S, Kukalev A, Andréa W, Winick-Ng W, Kempfer R, Pombo A, Yu M, Kumar P, Zhang L, Belmont AS, Sasaki T, van Schaik T, Brueckner L, Peric-Hupkes D, van Steensel B, Wang P, Chai H, Kim M, Ruan Y, Zhang R, Quinodoz SA, Bhat P, Guttman M, Zhao W, Chien S, Liu Y, Venev SV, Plewczynski D, Irastorza Azcarate I, Szabó D, Thieme CJ, Szczepińska T, Chiliński M, Sengupta K, Conte M, Esposito A, Abraham A, Zhang R, Wang Y, Wen X, Wu Q, Yang Y, Liu J, Boninsegna L, Yildirim A, Zhan Y, Chiariello AM, Bianco S, Lee L, Hu M, Li Y, Barnett RJ, Cook AL, Emerson DJ, Marchal C, Zhao P, Park PJ, Alver BH, Schroeder AJ, Navelkar R, Bakker C, Ronchetti W, Ehmsen S, Veit AD, Gehlenborg N, Wang T, Li D, Wang X, Nicodemi M, Ren B, Zhong S, Phillips-Cremins JE, Gilbert DM, Pollard KS, Alber F, Ma J, Noble WS, Yue F. An integrated view of the structure and function of the human 4D nucleome. Nature 649, 759–776 (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-09890-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09890-3
  10. Ganesh G, Fiche J-B, Nöllmann M, Mozziconacci J. Criticality-driven enhancer-promoter dynamics in Drosophila chromosomes. eLife 14, RP108117 (2025). DOI: 10.7554/eLife.108117. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108117
  11. Oliveira RJ, Oliveira Junior AB, Contessoto VG, Onuchic JN. The synergy between compartmentalization and motorization in chromatin architecture. The Journal of Chemical Physics 162, 114116 (2025). DOI: 10.1063/5.0239634. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0239634
  12. Chiang M, Battaglia C, Forte G, Brackley CA, Gilbert N, Marenduzzo D. Bridging-Induced Phase Separation and Loop Extrusion Drive Noise in Chromatin Transcription. Physical Review Letters 135, 158401 (2025). DOI: 10.1103/bjq4-xnsy. https://doi.org/10.1103/bjq4-xnsy
  13. Kadam S, Sahoo S, Sunil Kumar PB, Padinhateeri R. Dynamical properties of chromatin provide insights into key folding principles. Biophysical Journal 124, 3189–3205 (2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2025.08.018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2025.08.018
  14. Wei J, Xue Y, Liu Y, Tian H, Shao Y, Gao YQ. Steric repulsion introduced by loop constraints modulates the microphase separation of chromatins. The Journal of Chemical Physics 160, 054904 (2024). DOI: 10.1063/5.0189692. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0189692
  15. Remini L, Segers M, Palmeri J, Walter J-C, Parmeggiani A, Carlon E. Chromatin structure from high resolution microscopy: Scaling laws and microphase separation. Physical Review E 109, 024408 (2024). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.109.024408. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.109.024408
  16. Attar AG, Paturej J, Banigan EJ, Erbaş A. Chromatin phase separation and nuclear shape fluctuations are correlated in a polymer model of the nucleus. Nucleus 15, 2351957 (2024). DOI: 10.1080/19491034.2024.2351957. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491034.2024.2351957
  17. Harris HL, Rowley MJ. Mechanistic drivers of chromatin organization into compartments. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 86, 102193 (2024). DOI: 10.1016/j.gde.2024.102193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2024.102193
  18. Paggi JM, Zhang B. Toward decoding the mechanisms that shape sub-megabase-scale genome organization. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 92, 103062 (2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.sbi.2025.103062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2025.103062
  19. Zuo W, Risca VI. Beyond TADs and Compartments: Mesoscale Chromatin Folding and Its Dynamics in Transcriptional Regulation. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 27, 131–158 (2026). DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-020525-015843. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-020525-015843
  20. Tang J, Feng C, Su H, Chu X. Investigating Phase Separation in Genome Folding via Multiscale Computational Modeling. Advanced Science 13, e74997 (2026). DOI: 10.1002/advs.74997. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.74997