Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
Confirmatory Results

Comparative analysis of 2D and 3D distance measurements to study spatial genome organization

Elizabeth H. Finn, Gianluca Pegoraro, Sigal Shachar, Tom Misteli
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/076893
Elizabeth H. Finn
National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gianluca Pegoraro
National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sigal Shachar
National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tom Misteli
National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mistelit@mail.nih.gov
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The spatial organization of eukaryotic genomes is non-random, cell-type specific, and has been linked to cellular function. The investigation of spatial organization has traditionally relied extensively on fluorescence microscopy. The validity of the imaging methods used to probe spatial genome organization often depends on the accuracy and precision of distance measurements. Imaging-based measurements may either use 2 dimensional datasets or 3D datasets including the z-axis information in image stacks. Here we compare the suitability of 2D versus 3D distance measurements in the analysis of various features of spatial genome organization. We find in general good agreement between 2D and 3D analysis with higher convergence of measurements as the interrogated distance increases, especially in flat cells. Overall, 3D distance measurements are more accurate than 2D distances, but are also more prone to noise. In particular, z-stacks are prone to error due to imaging properties such as limited resolution along the z-axis and optical aberrations, and we also find significant deviations from unimodal distance distributions caused by low sampling frequency in z. These deviations can be ameliorated by sampling at much higher frequency in the z-direction. We conclude that 2D distances are preferred for comparative analyses between cells, but 3D distances are preferred when comparing to theoretical models in large samples of cells. In general, 2D distance measurements remain preferable for many applications of analysis of spatial genome organization.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted September 23, 2016.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparative analysis of 2D and 3D distance measurements to study spatial genome organization
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparative analysis of 2D and 3D distance measurements to study spatial genome organization
Elizabeth H. Finn, Gianluca Pegoraro, Sigal Shachar, Tom Misteli
bioRxiv 076893; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/076893
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparative analysis of 2D and 3D distance measurements to study spatial genome organization
Elizabeth H. Finn, Gianluca Pegoraro, Sigal Shachar, Tom Misteli
bioRxiv 076893; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/076893

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Cell Biology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (2516)
  • Biochemistry (4964)
  • Bioengineering (3466)
  • Bioinformatics (15166)
  • Biophysics (6885)
  • Cancer Biology (5379)
  • Cell Biology (7709)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (4518)
  • Ecology (7128)
  • Epidemiology (2059)
  • Evolutionary Biology (10206)
  • Genetics (7497)
  • Genomics (9763)
  • Immunology (4821)
  • Microbiology (13174)
  • Molecular Biology (5128)
  • Neuroscience (29354)
  • Paleontology (203)
  • Pathology (835)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (1460)
  • Physiology (2127)
  • Plant Biology (4728)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1008)
  • Synthetic Biology (1337)
  • Systems Biology (4001)
  • Zoology (768)