The spatial organization of the genome plays an important role in the regulation of gene expression. However, the core structural features of animal genomes, such as topologically associated domains (TADs) and chromatin loops, are not prominent in the extremely compact Arabidopsis genome. In this study, we examine the chromatin architecture, as well as their DNA methylation, histone modifications, accessible chromatin, and gene expression, of maize, tomato, sorghum, foxtail millet, and rice with genome sizes ranging from 0.4 to 2.4 Gb. We found that these plant genomes can be divided into mammalian-like A/B compartments. At higher resolution, the chromosomes of these plants can be further partitioned to local A/B compartments that reflect their euchromatin, heterochromatin, and polycomb status. Chromatins in all these plants are organized into domains that are not conserved across species. They show similarity to the Drosophila compartment domains, and are clustered into active, polycomb, repressive, and intermediate types based on their transcriptional activities and epigenetic signatures, with domain border overlaps with the local A/B compartment junctions. In the large maize and tomato genomes, we observed extensive chromatin loops. However, unlike the mammalian chromatin loops that are enriched at the TAD border, plant chromatin loops are often formed between gene islands outside the repressive domains and are closely associated with active compartments. Our study indicates that plants have complex and unique 3D chromatin architectures, which require further study to elucidate their biological functions.

The transcription regulatory network inside a eukaryotic cell is defined by the combinatorial actions of transcription factors (TFs). However, TF binding studies in plants are too few in number to produce a general picture of this complex network. In this study, we use large-scale ChIP-seq to reconstruct it in the maize leaf, and train machine-learning models to predict TF binding and co-localization. The resulting network covers 77% of the expressed genes, and shows a scale-free topology and functional modularity like a real-world network. TF binding sequence preferences are conserved within family, while co-binding could be key for their binding specificity. Cross-species comparison shows that core network nodes at the top of the transmission of information being more conserved than those at the bottom. This study reveals the complex and redundant nature of the plant transcription regulatory network, and sheds light on its architecture, organizing principle and evolutionary trajectory.

Leaves of C4 crops usually have higher radiation, water and nitrogen use efficiencies compared to the C3 species. Engineering C4 traits into C3 crops has been proposed as one of the most promising ways to repeal the biomass yield ceiling. To better understand the function of C4 photosynthesis, and to identify candidate genes that are associated with the C4 pathways, a comparative transcription network analysis was conducted on leaf developmental gradients of three C4 species including maize, green foxtail and sorghum and one C3 species, rice. By combining the methods of gene co-expression and differentially co-expression networks, we identified a total of 128 C4 specific genes. Besides the classic C4 shuttle genes, a new set of genes associated with light reaction, starch and sucrose metabolism, metabolites transportation, as well as transcription regulation, were identified as involved in C4 photosynthesis. These findings will provide important insights into the differential gene regulation between C3 and C4 species, and a good genetic resource for establishing C4 pathways in C3 crops.

Chromatins are not randomly packaged in the nucleus and their organization plays important roles in transcription regulation, which is best studied in the mammalian models. Using in situ Hi-C, we have compared the 3D chromatin architectures of rice mesophyll and endosperm, foxtail millet bundle sheath and mesophyll, and maize bundle sheath, mesophyll and endosperm tissues. We found that their global A/B compartment partitions are stable across tissues, while local A/B compartment has tissue-specific dynamic associated with differential gene expression. Plant domains are largely stable across tissues, while new domain border formations are often associated with transcriptional activation in the region. Genes inside plant domains

In both panels, the columns labeled "⌬espIϩpespI" should read "⌬espI" and the columns labeled "⌬espI" should read "⌬espIϩpespI."

Non-coding cis-regulatory variants in animal genomes are an important driving force in the evolution of transcription regulation and phenotype diversity. However, cistrome dynamics in plants remain largely underexplored. Here, we compare the binding of GOLDEN2-LIKE (GLK) transcription factors in tomato, tobacco, Arabidopsis, maize and rice. Although the function of GLKs is conserved, most of their binding sites are species-specific. Conserved binding sites are often found near photosynthetic genes dependent on GLK for expression, but sites near non-differentially expressed genes in the glk mutant are nevertheless under purifying selection. The binding sites’ regulatory potential can be predicted by machine learning model using quantitative genome features and TF co-binding information. Our study show that genome cis-variation caused wide-spread TF binding divergence, and most of the TF binding sites are genetically redundant. This poses a major challenge for interpreting the effect of individual sites and highlights the importance of quantitatively measuring TF occupancy.

SUMMARY C4 plants partition photosynthesis enzymes between the bundle sheath (BS) and the mesophyll (M) cells for the better delivery of CO2 to RuBisCO and to reduce photorespiration. To better understand how C4 photosynthesis is regulated at the transcriptional level, we performed RNA‐seq, ATAC‐seq, ChIP‐seq and Bisulfite‐seq (BS‐seq) on BS and M cells isolated from maize leaves. By integrating differentially expressed genes with chromatin features, we found that chromatin accessibility coordinates with epigenetic features, especially H3K27me3 modification and CHH methylation, to regulate cell type‐preferentially enriched gene expression. Not only the chromatin‐accessible regions (ACRs) proximal to the genes (pACRs) but also the distal ACRs (dACRs) are determinants of cell type‐preferentially enriched expression. We further identified cell type‐preferentially enriched motifs, e.g. AAAG for BS cells and TGACC/T for M cells, and determined their corresponding transcription factors: DOFs and WRKYs. The complex interaction between cis and trans factors in the preferential expression of C4 genes was also observed. Interestingly, cell type‐preferentially enriched gene expression can be fine‐tuned by the coordination of multiple chromatin features. Such coordination may be critical in ensuring the cell type‐specific function of key C4 genes. Based on the observed cell type‐preferentially enriched expression pattern and coordinated chromatin features, we predicted a set of functionally unknown genes, e.g. Zm00001d042050 and Zm00001d040659, to be potential key C4 genes. Our findings provide deep insight into the architectures associated with C4 gene expression and could serve as a valuable resource to further identify the regulatory mechanisms present in C4 species.

Chromatin is the main carrier of genetic information and is non-randomly distributed within the nucleus. Next-generation sequence-based chromatin conformation capture technologies have enabled us to directly examine its three-dimensional organization at an unprecedented scale and resolution. In the best-studied mammalian models, chromatin folding can be broken down into three hierarchical levels, compartment, domains, and loops, which play important roles in transcriptional regulation. Although similar structures have now been identified in plants, they might not possess exactly the same functions as the mammalian ones. Here, we review recent Hi-C studies in plants, compare plant chromatin structures with their mammalian counterparts, and discuss the differences between plants with different genome sizes.