No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 18, 2026.

Cis-regulatory sequences in plants: Their importance, discovery, and future challenges

Robert J Schmitz, Erich Grotewold, Maike Stam

The Plant Cell · 2021 · Review · CC BY

Abstract

The identification and characterization of cis-regulatory DNA sequences and how they function to coordinate responses to developmental and environmental cues is of paramount importance to plant biology. Key to these regulatory processes are cis-regulatory modules (CRMs), which include enhancers and silencers. Despite the extraordinary advances in high-quality sequence assemblies and genome annotations, the identification and understanding of CRMs, and how they regulate gene expression, lag significantly behind. This is especially true for their distinguishing characteristics and activity states. Here, we review the current knowledge on CRMs and breakthrough technologies enabling identification, characterization, and validation of CRMs; we compare the genomic distributions of CRMs with respect to their target genes between different plant species, and discuss the role of transposable elements harboring CRMs in the evolution of gene expression. This is an exciting time to study cis-regulomes in plants; however, significant existing challenges need to be overcome to fully understand and appreciate the role of CRMs in plant biology and in crop improvement.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 18, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

1A fundamental question in biology is how complex patterns of gene expression are regulated. Central to this is the genome-wide identification and characterization of cis-regulatory elements (CREs) and cis-regulatory modules (CRMs) that influence the expression of protein-coding and long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) genes. We refer here to CREs as individual transcription factor (TF) binding sites, while CRMs are assemblies of CREs and include promoters, transcriptional enhancers, silencers, and insulator elements. CRMs determine in which cell, at what time, and at what level a gene is expressed (Table 1 and Figure 1). In animals, the generation of comprehensive chromatin and epigenome maps have made the identification of gene regulatory sequences routine, even though these DNA elements are often located kilobases to megabases away from their target genes. Epigenome maps are effective because regulatory sequences possess distinct chromatin signatures. For example, active regulatory sequences display accessible chromatin, TF binding, low DNA methylation, and histone modifications such as acetylation or methylation of specific lysine residues in histone H3. Although relevant research in plants has lagged behind model animal species, recent studies in plants are revealing similar, but also distinct, molecular signatures at cis-regulatory sequences compared to animals. Although in plant species with smaller genomes, such as Arabidopsis thaliana (Arabidopsis), most CRMs are located in close linear proximity to the genes they control, the expansion of genome size and intergenic space in numerous plant species is associated with a large number of putative distal CRMs. Distal CRMs can regulate genes tens or even hundreds of kilobases away, complicating their identification. The systematic discovery of CRMs and the CREs they are composed of is a first step in the engineering and rewiring of existing regulatory networks to optimize plant growth and development, enhance stress resilience or generate plant products. To maximize the use of natural variation, and for synthetic biology to realize its full potential, deeper knowledge of regulatory modules is paramount to facilitate crop improvement. Numerous reporter assays are now being developed and implemented for the identification and functional characterization of CRMs, but there is still a need for more epigenome maps from many different cell types and growth conditions.

Transcription factor binding sites: important CRM constituents

2CRMs are assemblies of CREs, which serve as sequence-specific binding sites for TFs and are key components of the regulatory portion of each eukaryotic genome. The combination of TFs expressed and bound to CRMs in a particular cell type determines the activity and the ultimate function of CRMs. To activate CRMs, pioneer TFs (described below) bind to nucleosomal DNA, and recruit histone-modifying enzymes, such as histone acetyltransferases, and chromatin remodeling complexes that open the chromatin structure by displacing linker histones and mediating nucleosome eviction. Subsequently, other nonpioneer TFs and co-factors can bind to DNA within the accessible chromatin regions (ACRs), ultimately resulting in fully activated CRMs, which physically interact with their target genes through protein–protein interactions to regulate their transcription levels.

3In eukaryotes, 5%–7% of all nuclear genes encode TFs, proteins that recognize short DNA motifs in a sequence-specific fashion. Most TF-binding sites (TFBSs) are small (6–12 bases) and are therefore represented thousands of times in any eukaryotic genome. TFs are usually characterized by the presence of one or more conserved DNA-binding and/or dimerization domains that allow grouping them into 40 or more families. Traditionally, TFs have been classified into activators or repressors, but it is clear that many can function as both activator and repressor, depending on the proteins (co-activators or co-repressors) they interact with (alternate complex formation; Figure 2A;;;; ). For example, Arabidopsis WUSCHEL, a central regulator of stem cell proliferation, functions primarily as a repressor, yet has the ability to activate transcription of the floral homeotic gene AGAMOUS (AG; ).

4Identifying the sequences regulated by specific TFs is an area of active research. Members from the same TF family often recognize very similar DNA sequences in vitro, but with different DNA-binding affinities. Differences in DNA-binding preferences between paralogous TFs are important in establishing in vivo binding selectivity. Predicting which specific TF is tethered to a particular CRE in the genome in a given cell type remains challenging. Predictions require a good understanding of the cell types in which a TF is expressed and at what levels compared with the putative target genes; whether it is a pioneer or nonpioneer TF, and whether or not corresponding CREs are accessible. Consequently, it remains difficult to assign a role in activating or repressing transcription to a particular CRE in the genome. This difficulty is further augmented by multiple CREs together forming a CRM.

5For most TFs, nucleosomes provide a challenging barrier to access the CREs they preferably bind to. In contrast to most TFs, pioneer TFs have the ability to bind their cognate TFBSs on nucleosomes in inaccessible chromatin, enabling CRMs to adopt a state of competence to activate or repress transcription by recruiting activators or repressors, respectively. The first identified pioneer TF, FoxA (forkhead box A), involved in the development of endoderm-derived organs during metazoan embryo development, takes advantage of the similarity of its “winged-helix” DNA binding domain to linker histone H1 to displace H1 and gain access to nucleosomal DNA. Note that pioneer TFs use a variety of mechanisms to bind to DNA. Even DNA methylation, generally associated with inaccessible chromatin, can provide an anchor point for pioneer TFs. Indeed, many pioneer TFs, including FoxA, bind methylated DNA. In plants, several pioneer TFs have been identified, including LEAFY COTYLEDON1, LEAFY, APETALA1, and SEPALLATA3, which are respectively involved in controlling Arabidopsis flowering competency, flower meristem establishment, and floral organ specification.

CRMs: characteristics of the main players

6CRMs and their activity states are characterized by different combinations of DNA and chromatin features, whereby the features of promoters and enhancers are more well-defined than those of silencers. In plants, the DNA of the vast majority of CRMs appears stably unmethylated in a tissue-independent manner, and these unmethylated regions (UMRs) are enriched in accessible chromatin, histone acetylation (HAc), and TF–DNA interactions. Much of the rest of the genome is methylated, including a subset of genes and transcriptionally silenced transposable elements (TEs;;;; ). Therefore, UMRs likely encompass the vast majority of the CRMs within plant genomes, independent of their activity. This is consistent with the majority of Arabidopsis TFs not binding to methylated cytosines. A small fraction of UMRs appear tissue-specific, however. Indeed, active DNA demethylation at CRMs has been shown to play a role in specific developmental processes, such as fruit ripening in tomato and plant responses to stress conditions.

7Several different activity states have been described for CRMs, but as not all of these are defined unequivocally, we limit our description to the repressed, poised, and active states. Active CRMs are accessible for DNA-protein interactions, and enriched with (among others) HAc, which weakens the electrostatic interactions between nucleosomal DNA and histones, improving accessibility for the transcription machinery. Based on current knowledge, chromatin of repressed CRMs is inaccessible, unbound by TFs, and enriched with trimethylation of histone H3 lysine K27 (H3K27me3;; ). H3K27me3 marks transcriptionally silenced genes, their proximal flanking regions, and distal intergenic regions, and is associated with the presence of Polycomb Group (PcG) protein complexes. Poised CRMs have an activity state between repressed and active and are ready to become fully activated or inactivated. They are accessible, bound by few TFs, and enriched with H3K27me3 and low levels of an active histone modification, such as HAc (Figure 3;;;;; ). In animals, poised and active CRMs are generally associated with H3K4me1, but this does not seem the case for plants.

8In various organisms, active enhancers and silencers produce transcripts, including enhancer RNAs and lncRNAs;;;;;;; ). Knowledge of CRM-derived RNAs in plants is limited. In animals, enhancer RNAs are usually unstable, and produced in both directions (bidirectional) at the border of ACRs, at significantly lower levels than the unidirectional transcripts directed by core promoters. For mammalian cells, enhancer RNAs are used to predict enhancers, and a number of enhancer-derived lncRNAs play a role in enhancer function. However, the level at which transcription occurs at enhancers in plants is unclear. In Arabidopsis, transcription at intergenic regions seems rare. In maize, several dynamically expressed high-confidence lncRNAs associated with ACRs have been described, and co-expressed lncRNA–protein-coding gene pairs identified, suggesting a regulatory relationship; a small fraction of the lncRNAs overlapped with putative enhancers discovered in maize. It is important to note that for less well-annotated genomes, lncRNAs may correspond to unannotated protein-coding genes.

9Most characteristics are not limited to particular types of CRMs, hampering identification through the use of single characteristics. Instead, combinations of descriptors are often used to distinguish different types of CRMs. For example, in animals, high and low H3K4me3/H3K4me1 ratios are indicative of core promoters and enhancers, respectively.

Promoters

10For historical reasons, the term promoter is often used to indicate one to two kilobase pairs (kbp) upstream of the transcription start site (TSS; ). Such regions may contain enhancer and/or silencer elements, obscuring the discussion of the different types of regulatory elements. Therefore, in this review, we define a promoter as what is also known as the core promoter, which is the minimal sequence region that is needed to direct initiation of transcription, usually spanning 50–100 base pairs (bp) around the TSS. For RNA polymerase II (RNAPII) transcribed genes, this is the region to which the general TFs bind to help facilitate RNAPII to initiate transcription. General TFs are defined by their binding to core promoters to help position RNAPII. The core promoter alone drives only low (basal) transcription levels, and sometimes contains a TATA box. The TATA box is recognized by the TATA-box binding protein, a key factor in recognizing core promoter elements. In plants, however, the majority of the core promoters are TATA-less; at such promoters other cis-elements play a role in transcription initiation. Besides a TATA box, cis-elements such as a CCAAT-box and TC-elements are shown to contribute to the correct positioning of the transcription machinery and efficient transcription initiation.

11Active animal and plant promoters are characterized by accessible chromatin, H3K4me3, HAc, H2A.Z, a lack of DNA methylation, the binding of general TFs and RNAPII, and the production of stable, unidirectional transcripts. Generally, promoters display a positive correlation between transcript levels and the levels of H3K4me3 and HAc and are associated with reduced nucleosomal occupancy. Inactive promoters are generally enriched for H3K27me3 and are less accessible. Little is known about poised plant promoters. They may be marked by HAc, but also RNAPII, whereas the combination of H3K27me3 with H3K4me3 found in animals may be lacking. Typically, to allow transcription initiation, promoter DNA must be unmethylated, irrespective of its activity.

Enhancers

12Transcriptional enhancers are CRMs that, when bound by specific TFs and cofactors, increase the transcription initiation rate, and thereby the expression of their target genes in a tissue-, developmental stage-, and/or condition-specific manner. Enhancers can be located more than 1 Mbp away from their target gene; the average distance depends on the size of the genome. The first distal enhancer discovered in plants was the maize b1 (booster1) hepta-repeat enhancer, located ∼100-kbp upstream of the TSS of the b1 gene. The most distal enhancer so far described in plants is DIstal Cis-Element (DICE), which is required for high expression of the maize bx1 (benzoxazinless1) gene ∼140 kbp away. Enhancers have been defined to increase reporter gene expression when located up- or downstream of the gene, in an orientation independent manner. Recent data indicate the latter may, however, not be true for all enhancers. Active enhancers usually regulate their target genes through chromatin interactions, which involve TFs and cofactors at the enhancer, and the transcription initiation complex at the promoter. LncRNAs have also been implicated in these interactions.

13The billboard, enhanceosome, and TF collective models represent three different mechanisms for the interplay between enhancers and TFs, resulting in active regulatory sequences (Figure 2, B–D). In the billboard model, neighboring CREs form a CRM, but the individual CREs can almost independently affect gene expression; TFs can bind cooperatively and additively to the individual CREs and the composition of bound TFs is interpreted by the basal transcription machinery. This enables the same CRM to have different effects in different cell types depending on the expressed and bound TFs. In the enhanceosome model, enhancers are organized using a particular grammar of TF binding motifs; a specific order and orientation of CREs is necessary for the cooperative binding of specific TFs, and thereby for enhancer function. In the TF collective model, the recruitment of TFs is accomplished through binding to CREs and protein–protein interactions (;; Figure 2). While specific details of the different models vary in the literature, the picture is emerging that TFs are tethered to enhancers using additive or cooperative, and direct or indirect DNA binding. Note that while these models have been proposed for enhancers, they are likely to be valid for silencers as well.

14Genes can be regulated by multiple enhancers that act either complementarily, redundantly, pleiotropically, interdependently, or synergistically (Figure 1;;;; ). For example, different enhancers at the maize b1 gene display a different tissue-specificity, and the Arabidopsis SHATTERPROOF2 gene is regulated by two redundant CRMs. In Solanum lycopersicum, deleting combinations of candidate CRMs revealed both additive and synergistic interactions in the production of locule number depending on which CRM was deleted. Comparable to how genes can be targeted by multiple enhancers, enhancers can interact with more than one target gene, and are able to “skip over” genes, interacting with genes further away, in terms of the linear sequence, than the nearest flanking gene. For example, in maize, DICE enhances expression of bx1, but not bx8, which is located between the two.

15Similar to promoters, enhancers can be in active, repressed, or poised states (Figure 3). Active enhancers typically are characterized by the binding of activating TFs and cofactors, a lack of DNA methylation, ACRs with HAc (e.g. H3K9ac, H3K27ac, H3K56ac), H2A.Z at flanking nucleosomes, and physical interactions with target genes. Enhancers are often tissue-specific; in the tissues they are not active, they are likely repressed or poised. We hypothesize that most repressed enhancers are inaccessible and enriched for repressing modifications, such as H3K27me3, and need to be bound by pioneer TFs to become accessible and ready for activation (Figure 3;;; ). Poised enhancers may be bound by a few TFs, have ACRs, and be enriched for both H3K27me3 and low HAc levels. Upon activation, H3K27me3 is removed and activating histone modifications added.

16There may be other enhancer activity states besides those discussed above. Indeed, the largest class of distal accessible, UMRs identified in various plants is characterized by the absence of the histone modifications tested for, yet the histone variant H2A.Z is still present at these regions. In maize, such “unmodified regions” display enhancer activity in transient assays, albeit at lower average levels than ACRs marked with HAc. Gene ontology enrichment analysis of their flanking genes suggests these regions may be involved in developmental programs. In addition, there may be DNA-methylated CRMs within TEs that are demethylated in specific cell types or upon stress treatment, affecting the expression of genes involved in among others plant disease resistance.

Silencers

17Silencers, when bound by TFs and associated cofactors, actively decrease the expression of their target genes (Figures 1 and 3). They are crucial for establishing precise, tissue-specific expression patterns by blocking expression in cell types and tissues where the gene should be silenced; they prevent ectopic gene expression. For example, a 100-bp fragment in the second intron of the tobacco AG gene represses AG expression in nonfloral tissues, promoting flower-specific AG expression. Similarly, TACPyAT repeats in the Petunia hybrida chalcone synthase A gene promoter hamper ectopic chalcone synthase A expression. Like enhancers, silencers are also proposed to act in a position- and orientation-independent manner (Figure 1). Silencers can have multiple action modes. They can silence a gene directly, but also indirectly by silencing enhancers.

18Although silencers were described decades ago, attention to silencers has only increased recently. These recent studies indicate that silencers, like enhancers, can inactivate genes from distal genomic locations, and can regulate multiple genes. Furthermore, a single gene can be controlled by multiple silencers. Future experiments will be needed to determine if this is also true for plants. Intriguingly, silencers can exhibit enhancer activity in other cell types, indicating multifunctionality (see below).

19Silencers, like enhancers, probably exist in multiple activity states (Figure 3). The common denominator for active silencers across various genome-wide studies seems to be accessible chromatin enriched for H3K27me3. indeed showed that Arabidopsis Polycomb response elements recruit Polycomb proteins and H3K27me3, and silence nearby genes in a Polycomb-dependent manner. Also, several maize ACRs enriched with H3K27me3 were associated with transcriptional repression of the closest genes; although it remains to be investigated if these ACRs act as silencers. However, depending on the pre-established bias towards features silencers are expected to display, the chromatin characteristics of identified silencers differ, suggesting the existence of different classes of silencers. In a study focusing on human and mice, the vast majority of ACR-based silencers were not enriched with H3K27me3; some were enriched for H3K9me3. In Drosophila melanogaster none of 20 preselected H3K27me3-enriched ACRs showed silencing activity. Different combinations of histone marks have been observed at silencers, H4K20me with H3K27me3 or H3K9me3, or H3K27me3 with active marks such as H3K4me1, H3K27ac, H3K4me3, or H3K9ac. It was therefore concluded that to date there is no combination of chromatin marks that can unequivocally discriminate between silencers and other CRMs. The identification and characterization of TFs binding to individual CREs within CRMs is likely key to distinguish different types of CRMs. For example, in Arabidopsis, knockdown of two TFs binding to selected PREs yielded significantly higher expression levels of the target genes tested.

Insulators

20Insulators or boundary elements are another type of CRM studied extensively in animals. An insulator is defined as a DNA sequence that, when bound by the appropriate proteins and located between CRMs and core promoters, prevents the activation or silencing of potential target genes by these CRMs. They also prevent the inactivation of active genes by nearby heterochromatin. The most studied insulator protein is the CCCTC-binding factor (CTCF) which, however, is absent in plants. Accordingly, there are currently no indications that genuine insulator elements exist in plants. Plant genomes are able to maintain proper gene expression patterns without classic insulator sequences or proteins. It has been indicated that RNA-directed DNA methylation of sequences between euchromatin and heterochromatin provides local boundary activity. Note that “insulator” is a term used otherwise by synthetic biologists; in their transgene design it refers to “transcription blockers” and/or “transcription terminators”.

Multifunctional sequence elements

21In reality, the different functionalities of CRMs as described above are often intermingled rather than clearly separated (Figure 1). In animals, it has been shown that some core promoters can display enhancer activity and even regulate the expression of genes other than those for which it acts as core promoter., for example, observed that core promoters of multiple genes enhanced expression of the Pou Class 5 Homeobox 1 gene in human embryonic stem cells. Recent results also suggest enhancer activity by core promoters in plants. However, this study tested randomly sheared ∼670-bp genomic regions. Therefore, re-evaluation using smaller sequence regions restricted to just core promoters is needed.

22Conversely, enhancers often mediate the production of transcripts by RNAPII, indicating promoter activity. Indeed, enhancers can carry sequence elements resembling those of core promoters, including TATA-box-like motifs. Transcription of intergenic regions has also been observed in plants. However, it is unclear how many of these intergenic regions are mis-annotated genes.

23DNA elements acting as enhancers in one cell type can function as silencers in other cell types and vice versa. This intermingling of enhancer and silencer functions in one and the same CRM is likely due to combinations of binding sites for TFs mediating either of the activities. In such cases, the function shown in a particular cell type will depend on the expression levels of the corresponding TFs. An intricate interplay between intermingled enhancer and silencer functions is suggested to fine-tune target gene expression and define the boundaries between cells that do or do not express a given target gene. proposed that complex expression patterns evolved through combining enhancers mediating broad expression patterns with repressor binding sites that silence enhancer activity in specific cells.

Identifying and verifying CRMs individually and genome-wide

24Pinpointing and characterizing CRMs and their target genes is a challenging endeavor; however, there are a variety of approaches that have proven useful. The two main approaches, targeted and genome-wide, are briefly discussed below.

Targeted identification of CRMs

25Once transgenesis of chimeric sequences was established in plants, discovery of tissue-specific and environmentally responsive CRMs followed. One approach to identify unknown CRMs was the development of transgenic enhancer-trap lines. Several lines with tissue-specific expression patterns were identified. One example of a successfully identified enhancer is the Arabidopsis MATURE MINOR VEIN ELEMENT1.

26Although the above-mentioned techniques are useful when dealing with easily transformable, small-genome organisms, for large-genome organisms, such as maize, other methods appear more useful. Many of the best examples were discovered using quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping and genetic fine mapping approaches, for example, in maize, the tandem repeat b1 enhancer, the teosinte branched 1 (tb1) enhancer, and Vegetative to generative transition 1 (Vgt1), and DICE, mapping ∼100, ∼70, ∼60, and ∼140-kbp upstream of their (presumed) target genes, respectively. Interestingly, KERNEL ROW NUMBER4 (KRN4), a recently identified enhancer, is located ∼60-kbp downstream of its target gene, UNBRANCHED3 (UB3). The b1, tb1, and KRN4 enhancers were validated in transgenic and transient reporter assays. These tour de force efforts to identify the causal basis for QTL are excellent examples of how distal CRMs are important to natural phenotypic variation in maize.

Genome-wide identification and characterization of CRMs

27The advent of microarray and high-throughput sequencing boosted approaches to identify CRMs genome-wide tremendously. In particular, epigenomic features, TF binding, and chromatin interactions have proven useful for CRM detection. Of note is that strategic combinations of features are needed to identify and characterize CRMs and their target genes.

28The absence of DNA methylation can be used to predict plant CRMs in a genome-wide, tissue-independent manner, particularly when dealing with large, highly methylated genomes, while tissue/single-cell assays will pinpoint when and in which plant tissues/cell-types these CRMs may be active. Single-base resolution DNA methylation data are generated by whole-genome bisulfite sequencing, or through the recently developed enzymatic methyl sequencing.

29For the tissue-specific, genome-wide identification of ACRs, numerous assays exist, including DNase I-sequencing, formaldehyde-assisted isolation of regulatory element-sequencing, micrococcal nuclease-sequencing, and assay for transposase accessible chromatin-sequencing (ATAC-seq; ). The advantage of ATAC-seq is that it requires relatively low number of cells compared to other assays. Importantly, single-cell ATAC-seq in plants proved highly effective for the detection of CRMs at single-cell resolution, allowing the detection of cell-type-specific CRMs, even in lowly abundant cell types. Data from Arabidopsis and maize revealed that approximately one-third of detected ACRs are cell-type specific. Notably, the latter were enriched for TFBSs of TFs expressed in these cells.

30Chromatin immunoprecipitation-sequencing (ChIP-seq;; ) is a widely used technique to detect and characterize CRMs. It identifies features of interest such as histone modifications, histone variants, TFs, transcriptional cofactors, and RNA polymerase. Histone modifications in particular are instrumental in distinguishing between activity states of plant CRMs.

31Putative intergenic CRMs are often evolutionarily constrained. Thus, identification of conserved noncoding sequences (CNS) by comparative genomic approaches can be used to identify CRMs. A major challenge in identifying CNS is the generally short length of the CREs within CRMs, in combination with the higher sequence turnover of sequences flanking CREs.

32To identify putative CRMs underlying expression or phenotypic variation, existing genetic variation can be used. For example, genome-wide association studies and expression QTL analyses have been used to detect genotype-trait and expression associations, respectively, in noncoding regions in plant species. In maize, ∼40% of the heritable phenotypic variance underlying certain complex traits is found in ACRs and likely due to variation in CRMs. To evaluate the possible functional consequences of nucleotide polymorphisms within putative CRMs, the integration with multiple data types, including epigenomic data, can be used.

33Numerous CRMs and their target genes are located more than 10 kbp apart, complicating the identification of CRM–gene pairs. In this respect, advantage may be taken of the physical chromatin interactions occurring between CRMs and their target genes. Such interactions are usually identified using proximity ligation techniques commonly known as chromosome conformation capture (3C)-based techniques. Hi-C can reveal genome-wide chromatin interactions, especially in plants with relatively small genomes. In plants with large genomes, alternative methods such as chromatin interaction analysis by paired-end tag (ChIA-PET) and Hi-ChIP were recently adopted to enrich specific subsets of interactions associated with particular histone modifications or proteins present at CRMs (;;; Zhao et al., 2019a). For example, ChIA-PET and Hi-ChIP using antibodies against RNAPII indicated promoter–promoter (P–P) interactions in rice, wheat, and maize, while antibodies against H3K27ac and H3K27me3 may indicate active enhancers, and inactive enhancers or silencers, respectively.

Validation of CRM functions

34Functional evaluation of the regulatory activity of putative CRMs poses a major challenge. The bottleneck is the low-throughput of transient and transgenic gain- or loss-of-function assays. In these experiments, putative CRMs are cloned up- or downstream of reporter genes. These reporters typically are driven solely by a minimal promoter, or in addition by an enhancer, to test activation and silencing of the reporter genes, respectively. Reporter gene activity is assessed by (1) transient transfection of protoplasts, (2) Agrobacterium infiltration into Nicotiana benthamiana leaves, or (3) stable insertion into a plant genome (Figure 4A;;;;;;;; ). Loss-of-function approaches also include inhibiting CRM activity through RNA-directed DNA methylation or mutational approaches. It is important to be aware that CRMs may be functionally redundant, masking their function when deleted.

35Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)-mediated genome editing is becoming a preferred tool to modify sequences in their endogenous genomic context; it can be used to introduce quantitative variation and reveal hidden pleiotropy in many crop traits.

36The high-throughput method self-transcribing active regulatory region-sequencing (STARR-seq), and variants of this approach, enable en masse evaluation of CRM activity of genomic fragments (Figure 4B;;;; ). In the STARR-seq assay, genomic fragments are cloned into the 3'-untranslated region (3'-UTR) of a reporter gene, creating a library of reporter constructs that is transiently transfected into cells. RNA-seq of reporter gene-derived transcripts indicates the fragments possessing enhancer activity as these will enhance their own transcription. STARR-seq has been adapted to rice and maize. The study in maize validated that ACRs are enriched for enhancer activity, especially those possessing HAc at flanking nucleosomes. A recent study using Agrobacterium infiltration of reporter libraries into N. benthamiana leaves as well as maize protoplasts showed that enhancers were most effective when cloned upstream of the TSS, as in the massively parallel reporter assay (MPRA; ), instead of in the 3′-UTR. Intriguingly, observed environmental responsiveness of three enhancers, showing that transient reporter assays can be used to test the responsiveness of CRMs to changing conditions. Although STARR-seq and MPRA both provide a highly scalable method for CRM assessment, the outcome is affected by (1) the minimal promoter used, (2) the evaluation of CRM activity in plasmids rather than in their native chromatin context, (3) the cell types in the protoplast or leaf sample, and (4) the plant species used since not all CRMs are functional in other plant species.

TF-assisted characterization of CRMs

37Functional characterization of CRMs includes the identification of TFs binding to individual CREs within CRMs and the interplay between CRM-bound TFs. Methods applied can be divided into TF- and DNA-centered approaches. ChIP-seq is the gold standard to map genome-wide TF binding in vivo. Although there are publicly available TF ChIP-seq data in plants (;; Chang et al., 2013;;;; ), only a minor fraction of the TFs has been examined, and most data are from a single plant species, Arabidopsis. Reasons for so few data sets include (1) the limited availability of ChIP-grade antibodies, (2) the lack of transgenic plants expressing functional, epitope-tagged TFs, (3) the highly dynamic nature of TF–DNA interactions, and (4) low-throughput of the method. One possibility is to transiently express epitope-tagged TFs to map genome-wide TF targets by ChIP-seq.

38Besides in vivo approaches, there are high-throughput in vitro TF-centered assays, such as the use of protein binding microarrays (PBMs;;; ), and DNA-affinity purification-sequencing (DAP-seq;; ). The drawback of both methods is the use of naked, rather than nucleosomal DNA. Consequently, TF binding specificity in vitro is not necessarily the same as that in vivo.

39Besides TF-centered, there are also DNA sequence-centered approaches, of which yeast-one hybrid (Y1H) is most widely used. This method identifies TFs (prey) interacting with a specific DNA sequence (bait) of interest. PBMs, DAP-seq, and Y1H require the use of full-length cDNA sequences for the TFs being assayed and are therefore limited to species with available TF cDNA clone collections.

Genomic location of CRMs: the influence of genome size and organization

40CRMs are often computationally classified into a few major categories based on their linear distance to the nearest TSS of coding regions of genes. These categories generally include CRMs overlapping genic sequences (core promoter, 5′-UTR, exon, intron, 3′-UTR), and those within 2–5 kb of the TSS, 5-kb downstream of the transcription stop site, and further away from a gene (distal). Although a majority of the cis-CRMs are roughly within a few kbp upstream of their protein coding target genes, numerous CRMs are located elsewhere, such as introns or more than 10 kbp away of their target genes, both upstream and downstream of genes. For several species, including a number of plants, the average length of first introns is significantly larger than that of other introns, suggesting the presence of CRMs. Genome-wide experimental and computational studies in Arabidopsis showed enrichment for regulatory activity of first introns, although the genomic location seems more important than the intron size. Larger intron size might result from selection favoring insertions over deletions as a way to preserve functional CREs. CRMs are, for example, found in large introns in FLOWERING LOCUS C and AGAMOUS in Arabidopsis and knotted1 in maize (Zea mays;;;;;;; ).

41Classifications based on distance are somewhat arbitrary, but useful to conceptualize how CRM locations evolved within and between species. When using chromatin accessibility as a proxy for CRM activity, it becomes clear that differences in distance to the nearest gene are due to the variation in genome size. For example, in Arabidopsis, having a very small genome (∼135 Mbp), and rice, having a slightly bigger genome (∼373 Mbp), nearly 45% and ∼25%, respectively, of the ACRs are located within 1 kbp of their target gene, while in maize (∼2,400 Mbp) most ACRs are located >1 kbp of the nearest gene. This relation between CRM location and genome size is confirmed by additional chromatin accessibility studies in angiosperms. There are numerous explanations for the correlation between genome size and proportion of distal CRMs. The most likely explanation is that in larger genomes, CRMs that were adjacent to one another in smaller genomes, became separated in genome space by transposon proliferation and repeat expansion. For example, in Brachypodium distachyon (∼355 Mbp), a cluster of CREs could be present in a single ACR within 500 bp of a target gene, yet in Z. mays, this same cluster might have split in two ACRs by one initial transposon insertion followed by more TE insertions over evolutionary time (Figure 5A). Regardless of the genome size, the number of genes and putative CRMs are highly correlated. Large plant genomes do have more ACRs, and thus DNA sequence underlying ACRs. However, the number of ACRs does not vary more than about twofold between plant species ranging in genome size from ∼150 Mbp to ∼5,000 Mbp.

Distal CRMs become functional through long-distance chromatin interactions

42Distal CRMs—enhancers and/or silencers—affect the expression of their target genes through chromatin interactions. ChIA-PET and Hi-ChIP experiments identified tens of thousands of H3K4me3-, H3K27ac-, or H3K27me3-centered long-range intra-chromosomal interactions between distal CRMs and core promoters in different maize and rice tissues. A subset of these interactions is dynamic between different tissues, developmental stages, and environmental conditions. For example, in maize, the interaction frequency between upstream CRMs and the b1 gene positively correlates with the b1 expression level (Figure 5B; ). Interestingly, it was noted that ∼40% of distal putative CRMs in maize did not interact with one of the immediate flanking genes, i.e. they tended to skip at least one gene and interact with more distal genes. This is reminiscent of how DICE, a distal CRM, controls the expression of the maize bx1 gene. Mediator, a transcriptional coactivator complex, plays a key role in chromatin interactions between distal CRMs and core promoters in animals. In Arabidopsis, jasmonic acid regulates chromatin interactions that are dependent on the mediator subunit MED25, indicating a crucial role for Mediator in chromatin interactions in plants as well.

43How do distal CRMs and target genes find each other in 3D space? Genome-wide studies using 3C technology have uncovered that chromatin regions displaying similar epigenomic landscapes have the tendency to physically interact with each other through a mechanism called phase-separation. Phase-separation is mediated by proteins such as HP1α and its plant homologue Agenet Domain Containing Protein 1 (ADCP1), but also RNAPII and Like Heterochromatin Protein 1. As a consequence, active chromatin (active genes), facultative heterochromatin (PcG-silenced genes), and classical heterochromatin (silenced TEs) are organized into their own spatially separated territories, called topologically associated domains (TADs;;;; ). TADs are based on chromatin conformation data, and are computationally defined genomic sequences that have greater contact frequencies with one another than with sequences in neighboring domains. DNA sequences within one and the same TAD display higher interaction frequencies with each other than with sequences in other TADs. In animals, CRM–gene interactions appear mostly confined to TADs, with the borders between different TADs functioning as insulators. In plants, however, there are no indications for genuine insulator elements and long-range chromatin interactions spanning TADs have been observed accordingly.

44Numerous chromatin interactions have been identified by 3C-based experiments. For example, P–P interactions appear frequent, and genes involved in such interactions tend to be enriched for co-expression. The observed P–P interactions may be due to gene co-regulation, but may also be due to phase separation, i.e. clustering of DNA sequences that have a similar chromatin state but do not affect each other’s expression. Part of the P–P interactions may also be explained by part of the core promoters showing enhancer activity, regulating distal genes. Distinguishing interactions that regulate gene expression from chromatin interactions due to physical proximity is required to allow defining distal CRM–gene pairs unequivocally.

TE-derived CRMs

45TEs can influence gene expression through several different mechanisms, including the disruption of CRMs, spreading of silent chromatin into flanking genes, and by providing novel CRMs. Here, we focus on the latter events. It is increasingly recognized that TEs provide a source of CRMs. It is estimated that about 25% and 30% of regulatory sequences could be TE-derived (TE-CRMs) in humans and maize, respectively. Accordingly, several TEs are bound by TFs in mammals and plants. Transient reporter assays in mammalian and maize cells showed that a significant number of the TE-CRMs tested indeed showed enhancer or silencer activity. For maize, 8 out of 10 TE-ACRs tested drove reporter gene expression. Thus, although most TEs appear silenced in most tissues, a significant fraction may have co-opted a regulatory function.

46Specific to TE-CRMs is their potential to move and amplify within a genome. Accordingly, species-specific putative CRMs are often enriched in TEs. New insertions with favorable effects can be evolutionarily conserved, allowing rewiring of gene regulatory networks and the establishment of new gene networks during evolution, while insertions with unfavorable effects are likely to be neutralized by mutations. Rewiring of gene networks has been demonstrated for example for human embryonic stem cells, and networks involved in mammalian pregnancy and seed development in Arabidopsis. In general, proportionally older TEs seem to provide regulatory activity more often than younger TEs. The notion is that the older the TEs, the more time there was for CRMs to lose DNA methylation and co-opt a regulatory function for the host. Remarkably, certain TE families, such as endogenous human and mouse retroviruses, show greater regulatory potential than others. In plants, in absolute numbers, more putative CRMs are located in retroviruses than in DNA transposons. However, when analyzing the enrichment within these two classes in a range of plant species, putative CRMs are more enriched than expected in DNA transposons, and especially the hAT subclass. It is important to note that the number of TE-CRMs may be significantly underestimated. Most genome-wide analyses use unique mapping of short reads to a reference genome, which prevents read mapping to repetitive TE sequences. Sequencing of longer paired-end reads increases the ability to map sequence reads unambiguously. In addition, as is true for other CRMs, TEs acting as tissue-, cell type-, or stress-specific CRMs will only be detected when analyzing the relevant tissues, cell types, and conditions.

Examples of TE-related CRMs

47Although genome-wide assays suggest abundant TE-CRMs in multiple plant genomes, there are relatively few well-described examples in which a specific phenotype is connected with TE-CRMs (see e.g.; ). A classic example is the Hopscotch retrotransposon enhancing the expression levels of its target gene tb1 in domesticated maize compared to its wild relative teosinte (Figure 6A; ). Using STARR-seq, enhancer activity was detected from part of the Hopscotch element. In Arabidopsis, deletion of one out of four TEs in the promoter of a Jacalin Lectin family protein gene changed root-specific expression into a constitutive expression pattern, indicating a silencer function for the deleted TE. An example of a TE disrupting CRM function, is a MITE TE insertion in Vgt1, a putative enhancer of the maize floral repressor gene ZmRap2.7. This MITE insertion is associated with early flowering.

48For a number of TE-CRMs, the TFBSs involved in regulating associated target genes are known. For example, in Malus domestica (apple), a 4-kbp retrotransposon, redTE, increases the expression level of MdMYB1, resulting in red skin color of the fruits (Figure 6B; ). RedTE contains a binding motif for a dehydration-responsive element/C-repeat-binding (DREB/CBF) TF that enhances MdMYB1 expression at a relatively low ambient temperature. Strikingly, in maize, TEs associated with cold-, heat-, and salt-induced expression of nearby genes are also shown to be enriched for DREB/CBF TFBSs. Similarly, the ONSEN transposon in Arabidopsis harbours heat-responsive CREs that recruit HEAT SHOCK TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR A2 for activation of nearby genes.

49Although DNA methylation patterns appear very stable in plant tissues, there are indications that DNA demethylation of TE-CRMs may enhance the expression of particular stress-responsive genes upon application of various types of stresses. For example, the expression of RESISTANCE METHYLATED GENE 1 by the bacterial flagellin-derived peptide flg22 is associated with DNA demethylation of two helitron-related TE repeats upstream of the coding region by the DNA demethylase REPRESSOR OF SILENCING 1. These results suggest that DNA demethylation of TE-CRMs may play a role in plant immune responses. It remains unclear if the observed changes in DNA methylation at flanking TEs are causally related to the upregulation of linked stress-responsive genes. It has been shown that changes in gene expression can lead to changes in DNA methylation levels of nearby TEs.

Sequence conservation of CRMs in plants

50Sequence diversification of CRMs is a crucial factor underlying phenotypic variation between and within species. Functional diversification of CRMs, but also genes, and thereby gene regulatory networks, is driven by species hybridization and whole-genome duplications. Focusing on CRMs, one of the copies can be lost, or both copies diversify, leading to neo- and subfunctionalization. Indeed, studying the fate of duplicated CRMs over time has indicated that retention of CRMs between paralogs negatively correlates with divergence time from the duplication event. Analysis of paralogous distal ACRs in Z. mays and Glycine max revealed that, for ∼50% of them (>50% in G. max), both were accessible in the tissues studied. In species pairs such as Z. mays–Sorghum bicolor and G. max-Phaseolus vulgaris, over half of the distal CRMs are shared within the pairs, and two thirds of these possess accessible chromatin in both species (see an example in Figure 7; ). The diversification of duplicated CRMs is reflective of various factors, including domestication, selection, the timing of genome duplications, and the rates of sequence loss and changes.

51The rate of sequence diversification at CRMs depends on their function. A number of CRMs have been conserved during evolution, indicating they represent functionally important CRMs; comparative analyses can be used to identify such CRMs. Long divergence times enable sequence turnover, especially in non-coding regions, revealing CRMs containing CNS that have been preserved through time. In agreement, CNS are enriched in accessible chromatin regions and putative enhancers.

52Early efforts to identify CRMs using comparative approaches relied on locus-specific phylogenetic shadowing, whereby closely related species are used to find additive genetic differences to identify significant regions of conservation. This approach led to the identification of multiple CRMs in plants, for example at the AG and FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) loci in Arabidopsis, and MIR164 locus in Brassica. The intron of the AG gene even contains multiple conserved TF motifs among several Brassicaceae. Phylogenetic shadowing is also being applied genome-wide, finding CNS by comparing syntenic orthologous sequences. Synteny is often key to identify CNS genome-wide.

53Although CNS are useful to identify conserved versus diversified CRMs, the rate of nucleotide substitutions can limit the detection of CRMs. Therefore, many CRMs will require other data, such as chromatin structure data, to pinpoint their location. Altogether, information on sequence conservation of CRMs supports the idea that non-coding sequence variation contributes to phenotypic variation with evolutionary consequences for plant diversification and adaptation.

Future challenges and perspectives

54This is an exciting time to study cis-regulatory sequences in plant genomes. However, there are still many challenges to be overcome to improve the discovery, characterization, and functional evaluation of CRMs, and the identification of their target genes.

55A major challenge is the discovery of tissue- and condition-specific plant CRMs. This likely will be met by emerging single-cell droplet-based assays. Single-cell RNA-seq has already been implemented in plants by several groups, and single-cell ATAC-seq studies in Arabidopsis and maize have been reported. Whereas single-cell ChIP-seq, Hi-C, and whole-genome bisulfite sequencing methods are emerging for mammalian systems, they have yet to be implemented for plants. The combination of different single-cell data sets will be especially powerful in revealing the cis-regulome of plant genomes.

56Another challenge will be to identify which putative CRMs are enhancers versus silencers and which combine both functions. It is important to fill this knowledge gap as relatively few silencers have been identified and confirmed in plants to date. In addition, a minimum set of marks and/or proteins should be identified that distinguish enhancers from silencers, and ideally also their different activity states. One should not underestimate the efforts required to accomplish this.

57A third challenge is the detection of CRM–gene pairs, especially important since significant numbers of CRMs may regulate genes other than the immediate flanking genes. The use of single-cell 3C-based technology for this purpose would be extremely challenging. Fortunately, single-cell ATAC-seq in combination with single-cell RNA-seq can be used to exploit co-accessibility of ACRs and expression levels of putative target genes across cell types. Recent data from such an approach showed that predicted CRM–gene pairs in maize leaf cell-types coincided with about 78% of the Hi–C interactions detected in maize leaf tissue. Predicting CRM–gene pairs is further complicated by the opposite correlations expected for enhancers and silencers.

58Identifying the TFs and cofactors bound and tethered to CRMs also remains a significant challenge, because the gold standard approach, ChIP-seq, is time consuming and difficult to implement in systems with limited transformation efficiency. Even a plant with a small genome like Arabidopsis could potentially have 5–20 million TF–CRM interactions to validate.

59Plant researchers are going through a discovery phase concerning the cis-regulomes of different plant species, but in the future our attention will turn to applying this knowledge. Including CRMs in genome editing pipelines will complement existing efforts to edit gene-coding sequences and improve plant trait performance. Depending on the continent and plant species used, endogenous CRMs may be engineered through CRISPR-based mutagenesis, conventional mutagenesis methods, or crossing in existing genetic variants. In addition, CRMs, including synthetic CRMs, will be used to express transgenes encoding proteins of interest in a cell-type-specific manner, or to rewire existing TF networks. In the meanwhile, natural and induced genetic variation in CRMs will continue to be linked to existing and novel phenotypic variation.

References 289

1.
Adrian J, Farrona S, Reimer JJ, Albani MC, Coupland G, Turck F (2010 ) Cis-regulatory elements and chromatin state coordinately control temporal and spatial expression of FLOWERING LOCUS T in arabidopsis. Plant Cell 22: 1425–1440
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.110.074682
2.
Transient genome-wide interactions of the master transcription factor NLP7 initiate a rapid nitrogen-response cascade · 2020
No notice
3.
Andersson R, Gebhard C, Miguel-Escalada I, Hoof I, Bornholdt J, Boyd M, Chen Y, Zhao X, Schmidl C, Suzuki T, et al (2014a ) An atlas of active enhancers across human cell types and tissues. Nature 507: 455–461.
Not in our library10.1038/nature12787
4.
Andersson R, Refsing Andersen P, Valen E, Core LJ, Bornholdt J, Boyd M, Heick Jensen T, Sandelin A (2014b ) Nuclear stability and transcriptional directionality separate functionally distinct RNA species. Nat Commun 5: 5336
Not in our library10.1038/ncomms6336
5.
Andersson R, Sandelin A (2020 ) Determinants of enhancer and promoter activities of regulatory elements. Nat Rev Genet 21: 71–87
Not in our library10.1038/s41576-019-0173-8
6.
Appanah R, Dickerson DR, Goyal P, Groudine M, Lorincz MC (2007 ) An unmethylated 3′ promoter-proximal region is required for efficient transcription initiation. PLoS Genet 3: e27
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pgen.0030027
7.
Arnold CD, Gerlach D, Stelzer C, Boryń ŁM, Rath M, Stark A (2013 ) Genome-wide quantitative enhancer activity maps identified by STARR-seq. Science 339: 1074–1077
Not in our library10.1126/science.1232542
8.
Arsovski AA, Pradinuk J, Guo XQ, Wang S, Adams KL (2015 ) Evolution of cis-regulatory elements and regulatory networks in duplicated genes of arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 169: 2982–2991
Not in our library10.1104/pp.15.00717
9.
Identification of cis-regulatory motifs in first introns and the prediction of intron-mediated enhancement of gene expression in Arabidopsis thaliana · 2021
Not checked
10.
Bai L, Morozov AV (2010 ) Gene regulation by nucleosome positioning. Trends Genet 26: 476–483
Not in our library10.1016/j.tig.2010.08.003
11.
Expansion of a core regulon by transposable elements promotes Arabidopsis chemical diversity and pathogen defense · 2019
Not checked
12.
Barski A, Cuddapah S, Cui K, Roh TY, Schones DE, Wang Z, Wei G, Chepelev I, Zhao K (2007 ) High-resolution profiling of histone methylations in the human genome. Cell 129: 823–837
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2007.05.009
13.
Bartlett A, O’Malley RC, Huang SSC, Galli M, Nery JR, Gallavotti A, Ecker JR (2017 ) Mapping genome-wide transcription-factor binding sites using DAP-seq. Nat Protoc 12: 1659–1672
Not in our library10.1038/nprot.2017.055
14.
Batista RA, Moreno-Romero J, Qiu Y, van Boven J, Santos-González J, Figueiredo DD, Köhler C (2019 ) The mads-box transcription factor pheres1 controls imprinting in the endosperm by binding to domesticated transposons. eLife 8: 1–29
Not in our library10.7554/elife.50541
15.
Specific tandem repeats are sufficient for paramutation-induced trans-generational silencing. · 2013
Not checked
16.
Benko S, Fantes JA, Amiel J, Kleinjan DA, Thomas S, Ramsay J, Jamshidi N, Essafi A, Heaney S, Gordon CT, et al (2009 ) Highly conserved non-coding elements on either side of SOX9 associated with Pierre Robin sequence. Nat Genet 41: 359–364
Not in our library10.1038/ng.329
17.
Bernard V, Brunaud V, Lecharny A (2010 ) TC-motifs at the TATA-box expected position in plant genes: a novel class of motifs involved in the transcription regulation. BMC Genomics 11: 166
Not in our library10.1186/1471-2164-11-166
18.
Bernstein BE, Stamatoyannopoulos JA, Costello JF, Ren B, Milosavljevic A, Meissner A, Kellis M, Marra MA, Beaudet AL, Ecker JR, et al (2010 ) The NIH roadmap epigenomics mapping consortium. Nat Biotechnol 28: 1045–1048
Not in our library10.1038/nbt1010-1045
19.
Berry S, Rosa S, Howard M, Bühler M, Dean C (2017 ) Disruption of an RNA-binding hinge region abolishes LHP1-mediated epigenetic repression. Genes Dev 31: 2115–2120
Not in our library10.1101/gad.305227.117
20.
Bhupinder S, Franks RG (2017 ) Redundant CArG box Cis-motif activity mediates SHATTERPROOF2 transcriptional regulation during Arabidopsis thaliana gynoecium development. Front Plant Sci 8: 1712
Not in our library10.3389/fpls.2017.01712
21.
Blanco E, González-Ramírez M, Alcaine-Colet A, Aranda S, Di Croce L (2020 ) The bivalent genome: characterization, structure, and regulation. Trends Genet 36: 118–131
Not in our library10.1016/j.tig.2019.11.004
22.
Bourque G, Leong B, Vega VB, Chen X, Yen LL, Srinivasan KG, Chew JL, Ruan Y, Wei CL, Huck HN, Liu ET (2008 ) Evolution of the mammalian transcription factor binding repertoire via transposable elements. Genome Res 18: 1752–1762
Not in our library10.1101/gr.080663.108
23.
Boyle AP, Davis S, Shulha HP, Meltzer P, Margulies EH, Weng Z, Furey TS, Crawford GE (2008 ) High-resolution mapping and characterization of open chromatin across the genome. Cell 132: 311–322
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2007.12.014
24.
Longer First Introns Are a General Property of Eukaryotic Gene Structure · 2008
No notice
25.
Buenrostro JD, Giresi PG, Zaba LC, Chang HY, Greenleaf WJ (2013 ) Transposition of native chromatin for fast and sensitive epigenomic profiling of open chromatin, DNA-binding proteins and nucleosome position. Nat Methods 10: 1213–1218
Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2688
26.
Buenrostro JD, Wu B, Litzenburger UM, Ruff D, Gonzales ML, Snyder MP, Chang HY, Greenleaf WJ (2015 ) Single-cell chromatin accessibility reveals principles of regulatory variation. Nature 523: 486–490
Not in our library10.1038/nature14590
27.
Burdo B, Gray J, Goetting-Minesky MP, Wittler B, Hunt M, Li T, Velliquette D, Thomas J, Gentzel I, dos Santos Brito M, et al (2014 ) The Maize TFome - development of a transcription factor open reading frame collection for functional genomics. Plant J 80: 356–366
Not in our library10.1111/tpj.12623
28.
Busch MA, Bomblies K, Weigel D (1999 ) Activation of a floral homeotic gene in Arabidopsis. Science 285: 585–587
Not in our library10.1126/science.285.5427.585
29.
Shadow Enhancers Are Pervasive Features of Developmental Regulatory Networks · 2016
No notice
30.
How a Retrotransposon Exploits the Plant's Heat Stress Response for Its Activation · 2014
No notice
31.
Chandra V, Bhattacharyya S, Schmiedel BJ, Madrigal A, Gonzalez-Colin C, Fotsing S, Crinklaw A, Seumois G, Mohammadi P, Kronenberg M, et al (2021 ) Promoter-interacting expression quantitative trait loci are enriched for functional genetic variants. Nat Genet 53: 110–119
Not in our library10.1038/s41588-020-00745-3
32.
Temporal transcriptional response to ethylene gas drives growth hormone cross-regulation in Arabidopsis · 2013
No notice
33.
Cheng F, Wu J, Cai X, Liang J, Freeling M, Wang X (2018 ) Gene retention, fractionation and subgenome differences in polyploid plants. Nat Plants 4: 258–268
Not in our library10.1038/s41477-018-0136-7
34.
Chetverina D, Aoki T, Erokhin M, Georgiev P, Schedl P (2014 ) Making connections: insulators organize eukaryotic chromosomes into independent cis-regulatory networks. BioEssays 36: 163–172
Not in our library10.1002/bies.201300125
35.
Chuong EB, Elde NC, Feschotte C (2017 ) Regulatory activities of transposable elements: from conflicts to benefits. Nat Rev Genet 18: 71–86
Not in our library10.1038/nrg.2016.139
36.
Cirillo LA, Lin FR, Cuesta I, Friedman D, Jarnik M, Zaret KS (2002 ) Opening of compacted chromatin by early developmental transcription factors HNF3 (FoxA) and GATA-4. Mol Cell 9: 279–289
Not in our library10.1016/s1097-2765(02)00459-8
37.
Clark KL, Halay ED, Lai E, Burley SK (1993 ) Co-crystal structure of the HNF-3/fork head DNA-recognition motif resembles histone H5. Nature 364: 412–420
Not in our library10.1038/364412a0
38.
Clark RM, Wagler TN, Quijada P, Doebley J (2006 ) A distant upstream enhancer at the maize domestication gene tb1 has pleiotropic effects on plant and inflorescent architecture. Nat Genet 38: 594–597
Not in our library10.1038/ng1784
39.
Cokus SJ, Feng S, Zhang X, Chen Z, Merriman B, Haudenschild CD, Pradhan S, Nelson SF, Pellegrini M, Jacobsen SE (2008 ) Shotgun bisulphite sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome reveals DNA methylation patterning. Nature 452: 215–219
Not in our library10.1038/nature06745
40.
Wheat chromatin architecture is organized in genome territories and transcription factories · 2020
No notice
41.
Core LJ, Martins AL, Danko CG, Waters CT, Siepel A, Lis JT (2014 ) Analysis of nascent RNA identifies a unified architecture of initiation regions at mammalian promoters and enhancers. Nat Genet 46: 1311–1320
Not in our library10.1038/ng.3142
42.
Crevillén P, Sonmez C, Wu Z, Dean C (2013 ) A gene loop containing the floral repressor FLC is disrupted in the early phase of vernalization. EMBO J 32: 140–148
Not in our library10.1038/emboj.2012.324
43.
Crisp PA, Marand AP, Noshay JM, Zhou P, Lu Z, Schmitz RJ, Springer NM (2020 ) Stable unmethylated DNA demarcates expressed genes and their cis-regulatory space in plant genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117: 23991–24000
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2010250117
44.
Dao LTM, Galindo-Albarrán AO, Castro-Mondragon JA, Andrieu-Soler C, Medina-Rivera A, Souaid C, Charbonnier G, Griffon A, Vanhille L, Stephen T, et al (2017 ) Genome-wide characterization of mammalian promoters with distal enhancer functions. Nat Genet 49: 1073–1081
Not in our library10.1038/ng.3884
45.
Das S, Bansal M (2019 ) Variation of gene expression in plants is influenced by gene architecture and structural properties of promoters. PLoS One 14: 1–31
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0212678
46.
Deleris A, Halter T, Navarro L (2016 ) DNA methylation and demethylation in plant immunity. Annu Rev Phytopathol 54: 579–603
Not in our library10.1146/annurev-phyto-080615-100308
47.
Denyer T, Ma X, Klesen S, Scacchi E, Nieselt K, Timmermans MCP (2019 ) Spatiotemporal developmental trajectories in the Arabidopsis root revealed using high-throughput single-cell RNA sequencing. Dev Cell 48: 840–852.e5
Not in our library10.1016/j.devcel.2019.02.022
48.
A Large Fraction of Extragenic RNA Pol II Transcription Sites Overlap Enhancers · 2010
No notice
49.
de Wit E, de Laat W (2012 ) A decade of 3C technologies: insights into nuclear organization. Genes Dev 26: 11–24
Not in our library10.1101/gad.179804.111
50.
Diao Y, Fang R, Li B, Meng Z, Yu J, Qiu Y, Lin KC, Huang H, Liu T, Marina RJ, et al (2017 ). A tiling-deletion-based genetic screen for cis-regulatory element identification in mammalian cells. Nat Methods 14: 629–635
Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.4264
51.
Doğan ES, Liu C (2018 ) Three-dimensional chromatin packing and positioning of plant genomes. Nat Plants 4: 521–529
Not in our library10.1038/s41477-018-0199-5
52.
Dolfini D, Zambelli F, Pavesi G, Mantovani R (2009 ) A perspective of promoter architecture from the CCAAT box. Cell Cycle 8: 4127–4137
Not in our library10.4161/cc.8.24.10240
53.
Dong P, Tu X, Chu PY, Lü P, Zhu N, Grierson D, Du B, Li P, Zhong S (2017 ) 3D chromatin architecture of large plant genomes determined by local A/B compartments. Mol Plant 10: 1497–1509
Not in our library10.1016/j.molp.2017.11.005
54.
Dong Q, Li N, Li X, Yuan Z, Xie D, Wang X, Li J, Yu Y, Wang J, Ding B, et al (2018 ). Genome-wide Hi-C analysis reveals extensive hierarchical chromatin interactions in rice. Plant J 94: 1141–1156
Not in our library10.1111/tpj.13925
55.
Candidate silencer elements for the human and mouse genomes · 2020
No notice
56.
The regulatory landscape of Arabidopsis thaliana roots at single-cell resolution · 2021
No notice
57.
Dowen RH, Pelizzola M, Schmitz RJ, Lister R, Dowen JM, Nery JR, Dixon JE, Ecker JR (2012 ) Widespread dynamic DNA methylation in response to biotic stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: E2183–E2191
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1209329109
58.
De Laat W, Duboule D (2013 ) Topology of mammalian developmental enhancers and their regulatory landscapes. Nature 502: 499–506
Not in our library10.1038/nature12753
59.
Du Y, Liu L, Peng Y, Li M, Li Y, Liu D, Li X, Zhang Z (2020 ) Unbranched3 expression and inflorescence development is mediated by Unbranched2 and the distal enhancer, KRN4, in maize. PLoS Genet 16: 1–19
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pgen.1008764
60.
Efroni I, Mello A, Nawy T, Ip PL, Rahni R, Delrose N, Powers A, Satija R, Birnbaum KD (2016 ) Root regeneration triggers an embryo-like sequence guided by hormonal interactions. Cell 165: 1721–1733
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2016.04.046
61.
Ernst J, Kheradpour P, Mikkelsen TS, Shoresh N, Ward LD, Epstein CB, Zhang X, Wang L, Issner R, Coyne M, et al (2011 ) Mapping and analysis of chromatin state dynamics in nine human cell types. Nature 473: 43–49
Not in our library10.1038/nature09906
62.
Eveland AL, Goldshmidt A, Pautler M, Morohashi K, Liseron-Monfils C, Lewis MW, Kumari S, Hiraga S, Yang F, Unger-Wallace E, et al (2014 ). Regulatory modules controlling maize inflorescence architecture. Genome Res 24: 431–443
Not in our library10.1101/gr.166397.113
63.
Fagny M, Kuijjer ML, Stam M, Joets J, Turc O, Rozière J, Pateyron S, Venon A, Vitte C (2021 ) Identification of key tissue-specific, biological processes by integrating enhancer information in maize gene regulatory networks. Front Genet 11: Article 606285
Not in our library10.3389/fgene.2020.606285
64.
Farmer A, Thibivilliers S, Ryu KH, Schiefelbein J, Libault M (2021 ) Single-nucleus RNA and ATAC sequencing reveals the impact of chromatin accessibility on gene expression in Arabidopsis roots at the single-cell level. Mol Plant 14: 372–383
Not in our library10.1016/j.molp.2021.01.001
65.
Feng S, Zhong Z, Wang M, Jacobsen SE (2020 ) Efficient and accurate determination of genome-wide DNA methylation patterns in Arabidopsis thaliana with enzymatic methyl sequencing. Epigenet Chromatin 13: 1–17
Not in our library10.1186/s13072-020-00361-9
66.
Fenley AT, Anandakrishnan R, Kidane YH, Onufriev AV (2018 ) Modulation of nucleosomal DNA accessibility via charge-altering post-translational modifications in histone core. Epigenet Chromatin 11: 11
Not in our library10.1186/s13072-018-0181-5
67.
Feschotte C (2008 ) Transposable elements and the evolution of regulatory networks. Nat Rev Genet 9: 397–405
Not in our library10.1038/nrg2337
68.
Franco-Zorrilla JM, López-Vidriero I, Carrasco JL, Godoy M, Vera P, Solano R (2014 ) DNA-binding specificities of plant transcription factors and their potential to define target genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111: 2367–2372
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1316278111
69.
Freeling M, Scanlon MJ, Fowler JE (2015 ) Fractionation and subfunctionalization following genome duplications: mechanisms that drive gene content and their consequences. Curr Opin Genet Dev 35: 110–118
Not in our library10.1016/j.gde.2015.11.002
70.
Gagete AP, Franco L, Isabel Rodrigo M (2011 ) The Pisum sativum psp54 gene requires ABI3 and a chromatin remodeller to switch from a poised to a transcriptionally active state. New Phytol 192: 353–363
Not in our library10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03818.x
71.
Gardner MJ, Baker AJ, Assie JM, Poethig RS, Haseloff JP, Webb AAR (2009 ) GAL4 GFP enhancer trap lines for analysis of stomatal guard cell development and gene expression. J Exp Bot 60: 213–226
Not in our library10.1093/jxb/ern292
72.
Gaudinier A, Zhang L, Reece-Hoyes JS, Taylor-Teeples M, Pu L, Liu Z, Breton G, Pruneda-Paz JL, Kim D, Kay SA, et al (2011 ) Enhanced Y1H assays for Arabidopsis. Nat Methods 8: 1053–1055
Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.1750
73.
Gent JI, Ellis NA, Guo L, Harkess AE, Yao Y, Zhang X, Dawe RK (2013 ) CHH islands: de novo DNA methylation in near-gene chromatin regulation in maize. Genome Res 23: 628–637
Not in our library10.1101/gr.146985.112
74.
Ghavi-Helm Y, Klein FA, Pakozdi T, Ciglar L, Noordermeer D, Huber W, Furlong EEM (2014 ) Enhancer loops appear stable during development and are associated with paused polymerase. Nature 512: 96–100
Not in our library10.1038/nature13417
75.
Gil N, Ulitsky I (2020 ) Regulation of gene expression by cis-acting long non-coding RNAs. Nat Rev Genet 21: 102–117
Not in our library10.1038/s41576-019-0184-5
76.
Giresi PG, Kim J, McDaniell RM, Iyer VR, Lieb JD (2007 ) FAIRE (Formaldehyde-Assisted Isolation of Regulatory Elements) isolates active regulatory elements from human chromatin. Genome Res 17: 877–885
Not in our library10.1101/gr.5533506
77.
Gisselbrecht SS, Palagi A, Kurland JV, Rogers JM, Ozadam H, Zhan Y, Dekker J, Bulyk ML (2020 ) Transcriptional silencers in Drosophila serve a dual role as transcriptional enhancers in alternate cellular contexts. Mol Cell 77: 324–337.e8
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2019.10.004
78.
Greene B, Walko R, Hake S (1994 ) Mutator insertions in an intron of the maize knotted1 gene result in dominant suppressible mutations. Genetics 138: 1275–1285
Not in our library10.1093/genetics/138.4.1275
79.
Grosselin K, Woolfe A, Mottet G, Reichen M, Castrillon C, Menrath V, Ellouze S, Poitou A, Doineau R, Briseno-Roa L, et al (2019 ). High-throughput single-cell ChIP-seq identifies heterogeneity of chromatin states in breast cancer. Nat Genet 51: 1060–1066
Not in our library10.1038/s41588-019-0424-9
80.
Haberle V, Stark A (2018 ) Eukaryotic core promoters and the functional basis of transcription initiation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 19: 621–637
Not in our library10.1038/s41580-018-0028-8
81.
Halter T, Wang J, Amesefe D, Lastrucci E, Charvin M, Rastogi MS, Navarro L (2021 ) The Arabidopsis active demethylase ros1 cis-regulates defense genes by erasing DNA methylation at promoter-regulatory regions. eLife 10: 1–62
Not in our library10.7554/elife.62994
82.
Chromatin immunoprecipitation: optimization, quantitative analysis and data normalization · 2007
No notice
83.
Localized epigenetic silencing of a damage-activated WNT enhancer limits regeneration in mature Drosophila imaginal discs · 2016
No notice
84.
Heger P, Marin B, Bartkuhn M, Schierenberg E, Wiehe T (2012 ) The chromatin insulator CTCF and the emergence of metazoan diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 17507–17512
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1111941109
85.
Heger P, Wiehe T (2014 ) New tools in the box: an evolutionary synopsis of chromatin insulators. Trends Genet 30: 161–171
Not in our library10.1016/j.tig.2014.03.004
86.
Heintzman ND, Stuart RK, Hon G, Fu Y, Ching CW, Hawkins RD, Barrera LO, Van Calcar S, Qu C, Ching KA, et al (2007 ) Distinct and predictive chromatin signatures of transcriptional promoters and enhancers in the human genome. Nat Genet 39: 311–318
Not in our library10.1038/ng1966
87.
Hénaff E, Vives C, Desvoyes B, Chaurasia A, Payet J, Gutierrez C, Casacuberta JM (2014 ) Extensive amplification of the E2F transcription factor binding sites by transposons during evolution of Brassica species. Plant J 77: 852–862
Not in our library10.1111/tpj.12434
88.
Hendelman A, Zebell S, Rodriguez-Leal D, Dukler N, Robitaille G, Wu X, Kostyun J, Tal L, Wang P, Bartlett ME, et al (2021 ). Conserved pleiotropy of an ancient plant homeobox gene uncovered by cis-regulatory dissection. Cell 184: 1724–1739.e16
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.001
89.
Hetzel J, Duttke SH, Benner C, Chory J (2016 ) Nascent RNA sequencing reveals distinct features in plant transcription. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113: 12316–12321
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1603217113
90.
Heyndrickx KS, van de Velde J, Wang C, Weigel D, Vandepoele K (2014 ) A functional and evolutionary perspective on transcription factor binding in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 26: 3894–3910
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.114.130591
91.
Hirsch CD, Springer NM (2017 ) Transposable element influences on gene expression in plants. Biochim Biophys Acta - Gene Regul Mech 1860: 157–165
Not in our library10.1016/j.bbagrm.2016.05.010
92.
Hnisz D, Shrinivas K, Young RA, Chakraborty AK, Sharp PA (2017 ) A phase separation model for transcriptional control. Cell 169: 13–23
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2017.02.007
93.
Hong RL, Hamaguchi L, Busch MA, Weigel D (2003 ) Regulatory elements of the floral homeotic gene AGAMOUS identified by phylogenetic footprinting and shadowing. Plant Cell 15: 1296–1309
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.009548
94.
Huang D, Petrykowska HM, Miller BF, Elnitski L, Ovcharenko I (2019 ) Identification of human silencers by correlating cross-tissue epigenetic profiles and gene expression. Genome Res 29: 657–667
Not in our library10.1101/gr.247007.118
95.
Hughes JR, Roberts N, Mcgowan S, Hay D, Giannoulatou E, Lynch M, De Gobbi M, Taylor S, Gibbons R, Higgs DR (2014 ) Analysis of hundreds of cis-regulatory landscapes at high resolution in a single, high-throughput experiment. Nat Genet 46: 205–212
Not in our library10.1038/ng.2871
96.
Ikeda M, Mitsuda N, Ohme-Takagi M (2009 ) Arabidopsis wuschel is a bifunctional transcription factor that acts as a repressor in stem cell regulation and as an activator in floral patterning. Plant Cell 21: 3493–3505
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.109.069997
97.
Inoue F, Ahituv N (2015 ) Decoding enhancers using massively parallel reporter assays. Genomics 106: 159–164
Not in our library10.1016/j.ygeno.2015.06.005
98.
Inoue F, Kircher M, Martin B, Cooper GM, Witten DM, McManus MT, Ahituv N, Shendure J (2017 ) A systematic comparison reveals substantial differences in chromosomal versus episomal encoding of enhancer activity. Genome Res 27: 38–52
Not in our library10.1101/gr.212092.116
99.
Ito H, Gaubert H, Bucher E, Mirouze M, Vaillant I, Paszkowski J (2011 ) An siRNA pathway prevents transgenerational retrotransposition in plants subjected to stress. Nature 472: 115–120
Not in our library10.1038/nature09861
100.
Iwafuchi-Doi M, Donahue G, Kakumanu A, Watts JA, Mahony S, Pugh BF, Lee D, Kaestner KH, Zaret KS (2016 ) The pioneer transcription factor FoxA maintains an accessible nucleosome configuration at enhancers for tissue-specific gene activation. Mol Cell 62: 79–91
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2016.03.001
101.
Jain A, Anand S, Singh NK, Das S (2018 ) Sequence and functional characterization of MIRNA164 promoters from Brassica shows copy number dependent regulatory diversification among homeologs. Funct Integr Genomics 18: 369–383
Not in our library10.1007/s10142-018-0598-8
102.
Dynamics of Gene Expression in Single Root Cells of Arabidopsis thaliana · 2019
No notice
103.
LEAFY is a pioneer transcription factor and licenses cell reprogramming to floral fate · 2021
Not checked
104.
Johnson DS, Mortazavi A, Myers RM, Wold B (2007 ) Genome-wide mapping of in vivo protein-DNA interactions. Science 316: 1497–1502
Not in our library10.1126/science.1141319
105.
Joly-Lopez Z, Platts AE, Gulko B, Choi JY, Groen SC, Zhong X, Siepel A, Purugganan MD (2020 ) An inferred fitness consequence map of the rice genome. Nat Plants 6: 119–130
Not in our library10.1038/s41477-019-0589-3
106.
Jones DM, Vandepoele K (2020 ) Identification and evolution of gene regulatory networks: insights from comparative studies in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 54: 42–48
Not in our library10.1016/j.pbi.2019.12.008
107.
Jores T, Tonnies J, Dorrity MW, Cuperus J, Fields S, Queitsch C (2020 ) Identification of plant enhancers and their constituent elements by STARR-seq in tobacco leaves. Plant Cell 32: 2120–2131
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.20.00155
108.
Josephs EB, Lee YW, Stinchcombe JR, Wright SI (2015 ) Association mapping reveals the role of purifying selection in the maintenance of genomic variation in gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112: 15390–15395
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1503027112
109.
Junion G, Spivakov M, Girardot C, Braun M, Gustafson EH, Birney E, Furlong EEM (2012 ) A transcription factor collective defines cardiac cell fate and reflects lineage history. Cell 148: 473–486
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.030
110.
Juven-Gershon T, Kadonaga JT (2010 ) Regulation of gene expression via the core promoter and the basal transcriptional machinery. Dev Biol 339: 225–229
Not in our library10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.08.009
111.
Kagey MH, Newman JJ, Bilodeau S, Zhan Y, Orlando D, van Berkum NL, Ebmeier CC, Goossens J, Rahl P, Levine SS, et al (2010 ). Mediator and cohesin connect gene expression and chromatin architecture. Nature 467: 430–435
Not in our library10.1038/nature09380
112.
Kaplinsky NJ, Braun DM, Penterman J, Goff SA, Freeling M (2002 ) Utility and distribution of conserved noncoding sequences in the grasses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 6147–6151
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.052139599
113.
Target Genes of the MADS Transcription Factor SEPALLATA3: Integration of Developmental and Hormonal Pathways in the Arabidopsis Flower · 2009
No notice
114.
Kaufmann K, Pajoro A, Angenent GC (2010 ) Regulation of transcription in plants: mechanisms controlling developmental switches. Nat Rev Genet 11: 830–842
Not in our library10.1038/nrg2885
115.
Kawakatsu T, Stuart T, Valdes M, Breakfield N, Schmitz RJ, Nery JR, Urich MA, Han X, Lister R, Benfey PN, Ecker JR (2016 ) Unique cell-type-specific patterns of DNA methylation in the root meristem. Nat Plants 2: 16058
Not in our library10.1038/nplants.2016.58
116.
Kim J, Lee H, Lee HG, Seo PJ (2021 ) Get closer and make hotspots: liquid–liquid phase separation in plants. EMBO Rep 22: 1–15
Not in our library10.15252/embr.202051656
117.
Kim S, Shendure J (2019 ) Mechanisms of interplay between transcription factors and the 3D genome. Mol Cell 76: 306–319
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2019.08.010
118.
Kim TK, Hemberg M, Gray JM, Costa AM, Bear DM, Wu J, Harmin DA, Laptewicz M, Barbara-Haley K, Kuersten S, et al (2010 ) Widespread transcription at neuronal activity-regulated enhancers. Nature 465: 182–187
Not in our library10.1038/nature09033
119.
Klemm SL, Shipony Z, Greenleaf WJ (2019 ) Chromatin accessibility and the regulatory epigenome. Nat Rev Genet 20: 207–220
Not in our library10.1038/s41576-018-0089-8
120.
Koenecke N, Johnston J, He Q, Meier S, Zeitlinger J (2017 ) Drosophila poised enhancers are generated during tissue patterning with the help of repression. Genome Res 27: 64–74
Not in our library10.1101/gr.209486.116
121.
Kopp F, Mendell JT (2018 ) Functional classification and experimental dissection of long noncoding RNAs. Cell 172: 393–407
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.01.011
122.
Kremling KAG, Chen SY, Su MH, Lepak NK, Romay MC, Swarts KL, Lu F, Lorant A, Bradbury PJ, Buckler ES (2018 ) Dysregulation of expression correlates with rare-allele burden and fitness loss in maize. Nature 555: 520–523
Not in our library10.1038/nature25966
123.
Kuhlemeier C, Fluhr R, Green PJ, Chua NH (1987 ) Sequences in the pea rbcS-3A gene have homology to constitutive mammalian enhancers but function as negative regulatory elements. Genes Dev 1: 247–255
Not in our library10.1101/gad.1.3.247
124.
Kulkarni MM, Arnosti DN (2003 ) Information display by transcriptional enhancers. Development 130: 6569–6575
Not in our library10.1242/dev.00890
125.
Kunarso G, Chia NY, Jeyakani J, Hwang C, Lu X, Chan YS, Ng HH, Bourque G (2010 ) Transposable elements have rewired the core regulatory network of human embryonic stem cells. Nat Genet 42: 631–634
Not in our library10.1038/ng.600
126.
Laimins L, Holmgren-Konig M, Khoury G (1986 ) Transcriptional “silencer” element in rat repetitive sequences associated with the rat insulin 1 gene locus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83: 3151–3155
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.83.10.3151
127.
Laloum T, De Mita S, Gamas P, Baudin M, Niebel A (2013 ) CCAAT-box binding transcription factors in plants: Y so many? Trends Plant Sci 18: 157–166
Not in our library10.1016/j.tplants.2012.07.004
128.
Lambert SA, Jolma A, Campitelli LF, Das PK, Yin Y, Albu M, Chen X, Taipale J, Hughes TR, Weirauch MT (2018 ) The human transcription factors. Cell 172: 650–665
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.01.029
129.
Lee CS, Friedman JR, Fulmer JT, Kaestner KH (2005 ) The initiation of liver development is dependent on Foxa transcription factors. Nature 435: 944–947
Not in our library10.1038/nature03649
130.
Lee DS, Luo C, Zhou J, Chandran S, Rivkin A, Bartlett A, Nery JR, Fitzpatrick C, O’Connor C, Dixon JR, et al (2019 ) Simultaneous profiling of 3D genome structure and DNA methylation in single human cells. Nat Methods 16: 999–1006
Not in our library10.1038/s41592-019-0547-z
131.
Lee JH, Jin S, Kim SY, Kim W, Ahn JH (2017 ) A fast, efficient chromatin immunoprecipitation method for studying protein-DNA binding in Arabidopsis mesophyll protoplasts. Plant Methods 13: 1–12
Not in our library10.1186/s13007-017-0192-4
132.
Lenhard B, Sandelin A, Carninci P (2012 ) Metazoan promoters: emerging characteristics and insights into transcriptional regulation. Nat Rev Genet 13: 233–245
Not in our library10.1038/nrg3163
133.
Lettice LA, Horikoshi T, Heaney SJH, Van Baren MJ, van der Linde HC, Breedveld GJ, Joosse M, Akarsu N, Oostra BA, Endo N, et al (2002 ). Disruption of a long-range cis-acting regulator for Shh causes preaxial polydactyly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 7548–7553
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.112212199
134.
Lewis JJ, Geltman RC, Pollak PC, Rondem KE, van Belleghem SM, Hubisz MJ, Munn PR, Zhang L, Benson C, Mazo-Vargas A, et al (2019 ) Parallel evolution of ancient, pleiotropic enhancers underlies butterfly wing pattern mimicry. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116: 24174–24183
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1907068116
135.
Li E, Liu H, Huang L, Zhang X, Dong X, Song W, Zhao H, Lai J (2019a ) Long-range interactions between proximal and distal regulatory regions in maize. Nat Commun 10: 2633
Not in our library10.1038/s41467-019-10603-4
136.
Li G, Ruan X, Auerbach RK, Sandhu KS, Zheng M, Wang P, Poh HM, Goh Y, Lim J, Zhang J, et al (2012 ) Extensive promoter-centered chromatin interactions provide a topological basis for transcription regulation. Cell 148: 84–98
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2011.12.014
137.
Li Q, Gent JI, Zynda G, Song J, Makarevitch I, Hirsch CD, Hirsch CN, Dawe RK, Madzima TF, McGinnis KM, et al (2015 ) RNA-directed DNA methylation enforces boundaries between heterochromatin and euchromatin in the maize genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112: 14728–14733
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1514680112
138.
Li X, Fu XD (2019 ) Chromatin-associated RNAs as facilitators of functional genomic interactions. Nat Rev Genet 20: 503–519
Not in our library10.1038/s41576-019-0135-1
139.
Li Z, Wang M, Lin K, Xie Y, Guo J, Ye L, Zhuang Y, Teng W, Ran X, Tong Y, et al (2019b ) The bread wheat epigenomic map reveals distinct chromatin architectural and evolutionary features of functional genetic elements. Genome Biol 20: 1–16
Not in our library10.1186/s13059-019-1746-8
140.
Liang P, Saqib HSA, Zhang X, Zhang L, Tang H (2018 ) Single-base resolution map of evolutionary constraints and annotation of conserved elements across major grass genomes. Genome Biol Evol 10: 473–488
Not in our library10.1093/gbe/evy006
141.
Libault M, Pingault L, Zogli P, Schiefelbein J (2017 ) Plant systems biology at the single-cell level. Trends Plant Sci 22: 949–960
Not in our library10.1016/j.tplants.2017.08.006
142.
Lieberman-Aiden E, van Berkum NL, Williams L, Imakaev M, Ragoczy T, Telling A, Amit I, Lajoie BR, Sabo PJ, Dorschner MO, et al (2009 ) Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science 326: 289–293
Not in our library10.1126/science.1181369
143.
Lin D, Hong P, Zhang S, Xu W, Jamal M, Yan K, Lei Y, Li L, Ruan Y, Fu ZF, et al (2018 ) Digestion-ligation-only Hi-C is an efficient and cost-effective method for chromosome conformation capture. Nat Genet 50: 754–763
Not in our library10.1038/s41588-018-0111-2
144.
Lin Y, Meng F, Fang C, Zhu B, Jiang J (2019 ) Rapid validation of transcriptional enhancers using agrobacterium-mediated transient assay. Plant Methods 15: 1–10
Not in our library10.1186/s13007-019-0407-y
145.
Lisch D (2013 ) How important are transposons for plant evolution? Nat Rev Genet 14: 49–61
Not in our library10.1038/nrg3374
146.
Lister R, O’Malley RC, Tonti-Filippini J, Gregory BD, Berry CC, Millar AH, Ecker JR (2008 ) Highly integrated single-base resolution maps of the epigenome in Arabidopsis. Cell 133: 523–536
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2008.03.029
147.
Liu L, Gallagher J, Arevalo ED, Chen R, Skopelitis T, Wu Q, Bartlett M, Jackson D (2021 ) Enhancing grain-yield-related traits by CRISPR–Cas9 promoter editing of maize CLE genes. Nat Plants 7: 287–294
Not in our library10.1038/s41477-021-00858-5
148.
Liu R, How-Kit A, Stammitti L, Teyssier E, Rolin D, Mortain-Bertrand A, Halle S, Liu M, Kong J, Wu C, et al (2015 ) A DEMETER-like DNA demethylase governs tomato fruit ripening. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112: 10804–10809
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1503362112
149.
A 100 bp GAGA motif-containing sequence in AGAMOUS second intron is able to suppress the activity of CaMV35S enhancer in vegetative tissues. · 2020
Not checked
150.
Liu Y, Lou Q, Xu W, Xin Y, Bassett C, Wang Y (2011 ) Characterization of a chalcone synthase (CHS) flower-specific promoter from Lilium orential “Sorbonne.” Plant Cell Rep 30: 2187–2194
Not in our library10.1007/s00299-011-1124-9
151.
Long HK, Prescott SL, Wysocka J (2016 ) Ever-changing landscapes: transcriptional enhancers in development and evolution. Cell 167: 1170–1187
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2016.09.018
152.
Louwers M, Bader R, Haring M, Van Driel R, De Laat W, Stam M (2009 ) Tissue- and expression level-specific chromatin looping at maize b1 epialleles. Plant Cell 21: 832–842
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.108.064329
153.
Lu Z, Hofmeister BT, Vollmers C, DuBois RM, Schmitz RJ (2017 ) Combining ATAC-seq with nuclei sorting for discovery of cis-regulatory regions in plant genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 45: 1–13
Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkw1179
154.
Lu Z, Marand AP, Ricci WA, Ethridge CL, Zhang X, Schmitz RJ (2019 ) The prevalence, evolution and chromatin signatures of plant regulatory elements. Nat Plants 5: 1250–1259
Not in our library10.1038/s41477-019-0548-z
155.
Robust single-cell DNA methylome profiling with snmC-seq2 · 2018
No notice
156.
Lynch VJ, Leclerc RD, May G, Wagner GP (2011 ) Transposon-mediated rewiring of gene regulatory networks contributed to the evolution of pregnancy in mammals. Nat Genet 43: 1154–1159
Not in our library10.1038/ng.917
157.
Ma S, Zhang B, LaFave LM, Earl AS, Chiang Z, Hu Y, Ding J, Brack A, Kartha VK, Tay T, et al (2020 ) Chromatin potential identified by shared single-cell profiling of RNA and chromatin. Cell 183: 1103–1116.e20
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.056
158.
Maher KA, Bajic M, Kajala K, Reynoso M, Pauluzzi G, West DA, Zumstein K, Woodhouse M, Bubb K, Dorrity MW, et al (2018 ) Profiling of accessible chromatin regions across multiple plant species and cell types reveals common gene regulatory principles and new control modules. Plant Cell 30: 15–36
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.17.00581
159.
Transposable Elements Contribute to Activation of Maize Genes in Response to Abiotic Stress · 2015
Corrected
160.
Marand AP, Chen Z, Gallavotti A, Schmitz RJ (2021 ) A cis-regulatory atlas in maize at single-cell resolution. Cell 184: 3041–3055
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2021.04.014
161.
Marand AP, Zhang T, Zhu B, Jiang J (2017 ) Towards genome-wide prediction and characterization of enhancers in plants. Biochim Biophys Acta - Gene Regul Mech 1860: 131–139
Not in our library10.1016/j.bbagrm.2016.06.006
162.
McGarry RC, Ayre BG (2008 ) A DNA element between At4g28630 and At4g28640 confers companion-cell specific expression following the sink-to-source transition in mature minor vein phloem. Planta 228: 839–849
Not in our library10.1007/s00425-008-0786-1
163.
Mejía-Guerra MK, Li W, Galeano NF, Vidal M, Gray J, Doseff AI, Grotewold E (2015 ) Core promoter plasticity between maize tissues and genotypes contrasts with predominance of sharp transcription initiation sitesopen. Plant Cell 27: 3309–3320
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.15.00630
164.
Mendieta JP, Marand AP, Ricci WA, Zhang X, Schmitz RJ (2021 ) Leveraging histone modifications to improve genome annotations. Genes Genomes Genetics 11
Not in our library10.1093/g3journal/jkab263
165.
Meng F, Zhao H, Zhu B, Zhang T, Yang M, Li Y, Han Y, Jiang J (2021 ) Genomic editing of intronic enhancers unveils their role in fine-tuning tissue-specific gene expression in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 33: 1997–2014
Not in our library10.1093/plcell/koab093
166.
Meng X, Wolfe SA (2006 ) Identifying DNA sequences recognized by a transcription factor using a bacterial one-hybrid system. Nat Protoc 1: 30–45
Not in our library10.1038/nprot.2006.6
167.
Mette MF, Aufsatz W, van der Winden J, Matzke MA, Matzke AJM (2000 ) Transcriptional silencing and promoter DNA methylation inhibits transcription in plants. EMBO J 19: 8
Not in our library10.1093/emboj/19.19.5194
168.
The degree of enhancer or promoter activity is reflected by the levels and directionality of eRNA transcription · 2018
No notice
169.
Mikkelsen TS, Ku M, Jaffe DB, Issac B, Lieberman E, Giannoukos G, Alvarez P, Brockman W, Kim TK, Koche RP, et al (2007 ) Genome-wide maps of chromatin state in pluripotent and lineage-committed cells. Nature 448: 553–560
Not in our library10.1038/nature06008
170.
Genome wide analysis of Arabidopsis core promoters · 2005
No notice
171.
Monnahan PJ, Michno JM, O’Connor CH, Brohammer AB, Springer NM, McGaugh SE, Hirsch CN (2020 ) Using multiple reference genomes to identify and resolve annotation inconsistencies. BMC Genomics 21: 281
Not in our library10.1186/s12864-020-6696-8
172.
Morohashi K, Casas MI, Falcone Ferreyra ML, Falcone Ferreyra L, Mejía-Guerra MK, Pourcel L, Yilmaz A, Feller A, Carvalho B, Emiliani J, et al (2012 ). A genome-wide regulatory framework identifies maize pericarp color1 controlled genes. Plant Cell 24: 2745–2764
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.112.098004
173.
Mukherjee S, Berger MF, Jona G, Wang XS, Muzzey D, Snyder M, Young RA, Bulyk ML (2004 ) Rapid analysis of the DNA-binding specificities of transcription factors with DNA microarrays. Nat Genet 36: 1331–1333
Not in our library10.1038/ng1473
174.
Mumbach MR, Rubin AJ, Flynn RA, Dai C, Khavari PA, Greenleaf WJ, Chang HY (2016 ) HiChIP: efficient and sensitive analysis of protein-directed genome architecture. Nat Methods 13: 919–922
Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.3999
175.
Ngan CY, Wong CH, Tjong H, Wang W, Goldfeder RL, Choi C, He H, Gong L, Lin J, Urban B, et al (2020 ). Chromatin interaction analyses elucidate the roles of PRC2-bound silencers in mouse development. Nat Genet 52: 264–272
Not in our library10.1038/s41588-020-0581-x
176.
Ngoc LV, Kassavetis GA, Kadonaga JT (2019 ) The RNA polymerase II core promoter in Drosophila. Genetics 212: 13–24
Not in our library10.1534/genetics.119.302021
177.
Widespread natural variation of DNA methylation within angiosperms · 2016
No notice
178.
Nolis IK, McKay DJ, Mantouvalou E, Lomvardas S, Merika M, Thanos D (2009 ) Transcription factors mediate long-range enhancer-promoter interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 20222–20227
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0902454106
179.
O’Malley RC, Huang SSC, Song L, Lewsey MG, Bartlett A, Nery JR, Galli M, Gallavotti A, Ecker JR (2016 ) Cistrome and epicistrome features shape the regulatory DNA landscape. Cell 165: 1280–1292
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2016.04.038
180.
Offermann S, Dreesen B, Horst I, Danker T, Jaskiewicz M, Peterhansel C (2008 ) Developmental and environmental signals induce distinct histone acetylation profiles on distal and proximal promoter elements of the C4-Pepc gene in maize. Genetics 179: 1891–1901
Not in our library10.1534/genetics.108.087411
181.
Ogbourne S, Antalis TM (1998 ) Transcriptional control and the role of silencers in transcriptional regulation in eukaryotes. Biochem J 331: 1–14
Not in our library10.1042/bj3310001
182.
Oka R, Bliek M, Hoefsloot HC, Stam ME (2020 ) In plants distal regulatory sequences overlap with unmethylated rather than low-methylated regions, in contrast to mammals. bioRxiv
Not in our library10.1101/2020.03.24.005678
183.
Genome-wide mapping of transcriptional enhancer candidates using DNA and chromatin features in maize · 2017
No notice
184.
Oki M, Kamakaka RT (2002 ) Blockers and barriers to transcription: competing activities? Curr Opin Cell Biol 14: 299–304
Not in our library10.1016/s0955-0674(02)00327-7
185.
Osterwalder M, Barozzi I, Tissières V, Fukuda-Yuzawa Y, Mannion BJ, Afzal SY, Lee EA, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Pickle CS, et al (2018 ) Enhancer redundancy provides phenotypic robustness in mammalian development. Nature 554: 239–243
Not in our library10.1038/nature25461
186.
Ouma WZ, Pogacar K, Grotewold E (2018 ) Topological and statistical analyses of gene regulatory networks reveal unifying yet quantitatively different emergent properties. PLoS Comput Biol 14: 1–17
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006098
187.
Dynamics of chromatin accessibility and gene regulation by MADS-domain transcription factors in flower development · 2014
No notice
188.
Panchy NL, Azodi CB, Winship EF, O’Malley RC, Shiu SH (2019 ) Expression and regulatory asymmetry of retained Arabidopsis thaliana transcription factor genes derived from whole genome duplication. BMC Evol Biol 19: 1–17
Not in our library10.1186/s12862-019-1398-z
189.
Panda K, Slotkin RK (2020 ) Long-read cDNA sequencing enables a “gene-like” transcript annotation of transposable elements. Plant Cell 32: 2687–2698
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.20.00115
190.
Pang B, Snyder MP (2020 ) Systematic identification of silencers in human cells. Nat Genet 52: 254–263
Not in our library10.1038/s41588-020-0578-5
191.
Para A, Li Y, Marshall-Colón A, Varala K, Francoeur NJ, Moran TM, Edwards MB, Hackley C, Bargmann BO, Birnbaum KD, et al (2014 ) Hit-and-run transcriptional control by bZIP1 mediates rapid nutrient signaling in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111: 10371–10376
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1404657111
192.
Parvathaneni RK, Bertolini E, Shamimuzzaman M, Vera D, Lung P-Y, Rice BR, Brown PJ, Lipka AE, Bass HW, Eveland AL (2020 ) The regulatory landscape of early maize inflorescence development. Genome Biol 21: 165
Not in our library10.1186/s13059-020-02070-8
193.
Pehrsson EC, Choudhary MNK, Sundaram V, Wang T (2019 ) The epigenomic landscape of transposable elements across normal human development and anatomy. Nat Commun 10: 1–16
Not in our library10.1038/s41467-019-13555-x
194.
Chromatin interaction maps reveal genetic regulation for quantitative traits in maize · 2019
No notice
195.
Pliner HA, Packer JS, McFaline-Figueroa JL, Cusanovich DA, Daza RM, Aghamirzaie D, Srivatsan S, Qiu X, Jackson D, Minkina A, et al (2018 ). Cicero predicts cis-regulatory DNA interactions from single-cell chromatin accessibility data. Mol Cell 71: 858–871.e8
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2018.06.044
196.
Porto MS, Pinheiro MP, Batista VG, dos Santos RC, Filho Pde A, de Lima LM (2014 ) Plant promoters: an approach of structure and function. Mol Biotechnol 56: 38–49
Not in our library10.1007/s12033-013-9713-1
197.
Pruneda-Paz JL, Breton G, Nagel DH, Kang SE, Bonaldi K, Doherty CJ, Ravelo S, Galli M, Ecker JR, Kay SA (2014 ) A genome-scale resource for the functional characterization of Arabidopsis transcription factors. Cell Rep 8: 622–632
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2014.06.033
198.
Qüesta JI, Song J, Geraldo N, An H, Dean C (2016 ) Arabidopsis transcriptional repressor VAL1 triggers Polycomb silencing at FLC during vernalization. Science 353: aaf7354
Not in our library10.1126/science.aaf7354
199.
Mediator complex interaction partners organize the transcriptional network that defines neural stem cells · 2019
Not checked
200.
Quinn JJ, Chang HY (2016 ) Unique features of long non-coding RNA biogenesis and function. Nat Rev Genet 17: 47–62
Not in our library10.1038/nrg.2015.10
201.
Rada-Iglesias A, Bajpai R, Swigut T, Brugmann SA, Flynn RA, Wysocka J (2011 ) A unique chromatin signature uncovers early developmental enhancers in humans. Nature 470: 279–285
Not in our library10.1038/nature09692
202.
Rada‐Iglesias A, Grosveld FG, Papantonis A (2018 ) Forces driving the three‐dimensional folding of eukaryotic genomes. Mol Syst Biol 14: 1–12
Not in our library10.15252/msb.20188214
203.
Ramani V, Deng X, Qiu R, Gunderson KL, Steemers FJ, Disteche CM, Noble WS, Duan Z, Shendure J (2017 ) Massively multiplex single-cell Hi-C. Nat Methods 14: 263–266
Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.4155
204.
Ramírez-González RH, Borrill P, Lang D, Harrington SA, Brinton J, Venturini L, Davey M, Jacobs J, van Ex F, Pasha A, et al (2018 ) The transcriptional landscape of polyploid wheat. Science 361: aar6089
Not in our library10.1126/science.aar6089
205.
Reynoso MA, Kajala K, Bajic M, West DA, Pauluzzi G, Yao AI, Hatch K, Zumstein K, Woodhouse M, Rodriguez-Medina J, et al (2019 ) Evolutionary flexibility in flooding response circuitry in angiosperms. Science 365: aax8862
Not in our library10.1126/science.aax8862
206.
Ricci WA, Lu Z, Ji L, Marand AP, Ethridge CL, Murphy NG, Noshay JM, Galli M, Mejía-Guerra MK, Colomé-Tatché M, et al (2019 ) Widespread long-range cis-regulatory elements in the maize genome. Nat. Plants 5: 1237–1249
Not in our library10.1038/s41477-019-0547-0
207.
Riechmann JL, Ratcliffe OJ (2000 ) A genomic perspective on plant transcription factors. Curr Opin Plant Biol 3: 423–434
Not in our library10.1016/s1369-5266(00)00107-2
208.
Rodgers Melnick E, Vera DL, Bass HW, Buckler ES (2016 ) Open chromatin reveals the functional maize genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113: 3177–3184
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1525244113
209.
Rodríguez-Leal D, Lemmon ZH, Man J, Bartlett ME, Lippman ZB (2017 ) Engineering quantitative trait variation for crop improvement by genome editing. Cell 171: 470–480.e8
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.030
210.
Della Rosa M, Spivakov M (2020 ) Silencers in the spotlight. Nat Genet 52: 244–245
Not in our library10.1038/s41588-020-0583-8
211.
Rosenfeld MG, Lunyak VV, Glass CK (2006 ) Sensors and signals: a coactivator/corepressor/epigenetic code for integrating signal-dependent programs of transcriptional response. Genes Dev 20: 1405–1428
Not in our library10.1101/gad.1424806
212.
Rowley MJ, Corces VG (2018 ) Organizational principles of 3D genome architecture. Nat Rev Genet 19: 789–800
Not in our library10.1038/s41576-018-0060-8
213.
Ryu KH, Huang L, Kang HM, Schiefelbein J (2019 ) Single-cell RNA sequencing resolves molecular relationships among individual plant cells. Plant Physiol 179: 1444–1456
Not in our library10.1104/pp.18.01482
214.
Sabarís G, Laiker I, Preger-Ben Noon E, Frankel N (2019 ) Actors with multiple roles: pleiotropic enhancers and the paradigm of enhancer modularity. Trends Genet 35: 423–433
Not in our library10.1016/j.tig.2019.03.006
215.
Salvi S, Sponza G, Morgante M, Tomes D, Niu X, Fengler KA, Meeley R, Ananiev EV, Svitashev S, Bruggemann E, et al (2007 ) Conserved noncoding genomic sequences associated with a flowering-time quantitative trait locus in maize. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 11376–11381
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0704145104
216.
Sawada S, Scarborough JD, Killeen N, Littman DR (1994 ) A lineage-specific transcriptional silencer regulates CD4 gene expression during T lymphocyte development. Cell 77: 917–929
Not in our library10.1016/0092-8674(94)90140-6
217.
Schaumberg KA, Antunes MS, Kassaw TK, Xu W, Zalewski CS, Medford JI, Prasad A (2015 ) Quantitative characterization of genetic parts and circuits for plant synthetic biology. Nat Methods 13: 94–100
Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.3659
218.
Schmitz RJ, Schultz MD, Urich MA, Nery JR, Pelizzola M, Libiger O, Alix A, McCosh RB, Chen H, Schork NJ, et al (2013 ) Patterns of population epigenomic diversity. Nature 495: 193–198
Not in our library10.1038/nature11968
219.
Schones DE, Cui K, Cuddapah S, Roh TY, Barski A, Wang Z, Wei G, Zhao K (2008 ) Dynamic regulation of nucleosome positioning in the human genome. Cell 132: 887–898
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2008.02.022
220.
Stress induced gene expression drives transient DNA methylation changes at adjacent repetitive elements · 2015
No notice
221.
Shen N, Zhao J, Schipper JL, Zhang Y, Bepler T, Leehr D, Bradley J, Horton J, Lapp H, Gordan R (2018 ) Divergence in DNA specificity among paralogous transcription factors contributes to their differential in vivo binding. Cell Syst 6: 470–483
Not in our library10.1016/j.cels.2018.02.009
222.
Shlyueva D, Stampfel G, Stark A (2014 ) Transcriptional enhancers: from properties to genome-wide predictions. Nat Rev Genet 15: 272–286
Not in our library10.1038/nrg3682
223.
High-Throughput Single-Cell Transcriptome Profiling of Plant Cell Types · 2019
Not checked
224.
Sidorenko L, Dorweiler JE, Cigan AM, Arteaga-Vazquez M, Vyas M, Kermicle J, Jurcin D, Brzeski J, Cai Y, Chandler VL (2009 ) A dominant mutation in mediator of paramutation2, one of three second-largest subunits of a plant-specific RNA polymerase, disrupts multiple siRNA silencing processes. PLoS Genet 5: e1000725
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pgen.1000725
225.
Sieburth LE, Meyerowitz EM (1997 ) Molecular dissection of the AGAMOUS control region shows that cis elements for spatial regulation are located intragenically. Plant Cell 9: 355–365
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.9.3.355
226.
Simon JA, Kingston RE (2013 ) Occupying chromatin: polycomb mechanisms for getting to genomic targets, stopping transcriptional traffic, and staying put. Mol Cell 49: 808–824
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2013.02.013
227.
Simonti CN, Pavličev M, Capra JA (2017 ) Transposable element exaptation into regulatory regions is rare, influenced by evolutionary age, and subject to pleiotropic constraints. Mol Biol Evol 34: 2856–2869
Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msx219
228.
Song L, Huang SSC, Wise A, Castanoz R, Nery JR, Chen H, Watanabe M, Thomas J, Bar-Joseph Z, Ecker JR (2016 ) A transcription factor hierarchy defines an environmental stress response network. Science 354: aag1550
Not in our library10.1126/science.aag1550
229.
Spitz F, Furlong EEM (2012 ) Transcription factors: from enhancer binding to developmental control. Nat Rev Genet 13: 613–626
Not in our library10.1038/nrg3207
230.
Springer N, de León N, Grotewold E (2019 ) Challenges of translating gene regulatory information into agronomic improvements. Trends Plant Sci 24: 1075–1082
Not in our library10.1016/j.tplants.2019.07.004
231.
Stadler MB, Murr R, Burger L, Ivanek R, Lienert F, Schöler A, van Nimwegen E, Wirbelauer C, Oakeley EJ, Gaidatzis D, et al (2011 ) DNA-binding factors shape the mouse methylome at distal regulatory regions. Nature 480: 490–495
Not in our library10.1038/nature10716
232.
Stam M, Belele C, Dorweiler JE, Chandler VL (2002 ) Differential chromatin structure within a tandem array 100 kb upstream of the maize b1 locus is associated with paramutation. Genes Dev 16: 1906–1918
Not in our library10.1101/gad.1006702
233.
Stam M, Tark-Dame M, Fransz P (2019 ) 3D genome organization: a role for phase separation and loop extrusion? Curr Opin Plant Biol 48: 36–46
Not in our library10.1016/j.pbi.2019.03.008
234.
Studer A, Zhao Q, Ross-Ibarra J, Doebley J (2011 ) Identification of a functional transposon insertion in the maize domestication gene tb1. Nat Genet 43: 1160–1163
Not in our library10.1038/ng.942
235.
Sun J, He N, Niu L, Huang Y, Shen W, Zhang Y, Li L, Hou C (2019 ) Global quantitative mapping of enhancers in rice by STARR-seq. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics 17: 140–153
Not in our library10.1016/j.gpb.2018.11.003
236.
Sun Y, Dong L, Zhang Y, Lin D, Xu W, Ke C, Han L, Deng L, Li G, Jackson D, et al (2020 ) 3D genome architecture coordinates trans and cis regulation of differentially expressed ear and tassel genes in maize. Genome Biol 21: 1–25
Not in our library10.1186/s13059-020-02063-7
237.
Sundaresan V, Springer P, Volpe T, Haward S, Jones JDG, Dean C, Ma H, Martienssen R (1995 ) Patterns of gene action in plant development revealed by enhancer trap and gene trap transposable elements. Genes Dev 9: 1797–1810
Not in our library10.1101/gad.9.14.1797
238.
Tao Z, Shen L, Gu X, Wang Y, Yu H, He Y (2017 ) Embryonic epigenetic reprogramming by a pioneer transcription factor in plants. Nature 551: 124–128
Not in our library10.1038/nature24300
239.
Thieffry A, Vigh ML, Bornholdt J, Ivanov M, Brodersen P, Sandelin A (2020 ) Characterization of Arabidopsis thaliana promoter bidirectionality and antisense RNAs by depletion of nuclear RNA decay pathways. Plant Cell 32: tpc.00815.2019
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.19.00815
240.
Timko MP, Kausch AP, Castresana C, Fassler J, Herrera-Estrella L, Van Den Broeck G, Van Montagu M, Schell J, Cashmore AR (1985 ) Light regulation of plant gene expression by an upstream enhancer-like element. Nature 318: 579–582
Not in our library10.1038/318579a0
241.
Reconstructing the maize leaf regulatory network using ChIP-seq data of 104 transcription factors · 2020
Corrected
242.
van der Meer IM, Brouwer M, Spelt CE, Mol JM, Stuitje AR (1992 ) The TACPyAT repeats in the chalcone synthase promoter of Petunia hybrida act as a dominant negative cis‐acting module in the control of organ‐specific expression. Plant J 2: 525–535
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-313x.1992.00525.x
243.
Van de Velde J, Van Bel M, Vaneechoutte D, Vandepoele K (2016 ) A collection of conserved noncoding sequences to study gene regulation in flowering plants. Plant Physiol 171: 2586–2598
Not in our library10.1104/pp.16.00821
244.
Visel A, Blow MJ, Li Z, Zhang T, Akiyama JA, Holt A, Plajzer-Frick I, Shoukry M, Wright C, Chen F, et al (2009 ) ChIP-seq accurately predicts tissue-specific activity of enhancers. Nature 457: 854–858
Not in our library10.1038/nature07730
245.
Vockley CM, McDowell IC, D’Ippolito AM, Reddy TE (2017 ) A long-range flexible billboard model of gene activation. Transcription 8: 261–267
Not in our library10.1080/21541264.2017.1317694
246.
Wang H, Li S, Li Y, Xu Y, Wang Y, Zhang R, Sun W, Chen Q, Wang X-J, Li C, et al (2019 ) MED25 connects enhancer–promoter looping and MYC2-dependent activation of jasmonate signalling. Nat Plants 5: 616–625
Not in our library10.1038/s41477-019-0441-9
247.
Wang M, Tu L, Lin M, Lin Z, Wang P, Yang Q, Ye Z, Shen C, Li J, Zhang L, et al (2017 ). Asymmetric subgenome selection and cis-regulatory divergence during cotton domestication. Nat Genet 49: 579–587
Not in our library10.1038/ng.3807
248.
Wang M, Wang P, Lin M, Ye Z, Li G, Tu L, Shen C, Li J, Yang Q, Zhang X (2018 ) Evolutionary dynamics of 3D genome architecture following polyploidization in cotton. Nat Plants 4: 90–97
Not in our library10.1038/s41477-017-0096-3
249.
Wang Q, Shen WH (2018 ) Chromatin modulation and gene regulation in plants: insight about prc1 function. Biochem Soc Trans 46: 957–966
Not in our library10.1042/bst20170576
250.
Wang X, Aguirre L, Rodríguez-Leal D, Hendelman A, Benoit M, Lippman ZB (2021 ) Dissecting cis-regulatory control of quantitative trait variation in a plant stem cell circuit. Nat Plants 7: 419–427
Not in our library10.1038/s41477-021-00898-x
251.
Weber B, Zicola J, Oka R, Stam M (2016 ) Plant enhancers: a call for discovery. Trends Plant Sci 21: 974–987
Not in our library10.1016/j.tplants.2016.07.013
252.
Weingarten-Gabbay S, Segal E (2014 ) The grammar of transcriptional regulation. Hum Genet 133: 701–711
Not in our library10.1007/s00439-013-1413-1
253.
Weirauch MT, Yang A, Albu M, Cote AG, Montenegro-Montero A, Drewe P, Najafabadi HS, Lambert SA, Mann I, Cook K, et al (2014 ) Determination and inference of eukaryotic transcription factor sequence specificity. Cell 158: 1431–1443
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2014.08.009
254.
Wittkopp PJ, Kalay G (2012 ) Cis-regulatory elements: molecular mechanisms and evolutionary processes underlying divergence. Nat Rev Genet 13: 59–69
Not in our library10.1038/nrg3095
255.
Wu C, Li X, Yuan W, Chen G, Kilian A, Li J, Xu C, Li X, Zhou DX, Wang S, Zhang Q (2003 ) Development of enhancer trap lines for functional analysis of the rice genome. Plant J 35: 418–427
Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-313x.2003.01808.x
256.
Wu Q, Luo A, Zadrozny T, Sylvester A, Jackson D (2013 ) Fluorescent protein marker lines in maize: generation and applications. Int J Dev Biol 57: 535–543
Not in our library10.1387/ijdb.130240qw
257.
Wu Q, Smith NA, Zhang D, Zhou C, Wang M-B (2018 ) Root-specific expression of a jacalin lectin family protein gene requires a transposable element sequence in the promoter. Genes (Basel) 9: 1–14
Not in our library10.3390/genes9110550
258.
Wunderlich Z, Mirny LA (2009 ) Different gene regulation strategies revealed by analysis of binding motifs. Trends Genet 25: 434–440
Not in our library10.1016/j.tig.2009.08.003
259.
Xiao J, Jin R, Yu X, Shen M, Wagner JD, Pai A, Song C, Zhuang M, Klasfeld S, He C, et al (2017 ) Cis and trans determinants of epigenetic silencing by Polycomb repressive complex 2 in Arabidopsis. Nat Genet 49: 1546–1552
Not in our library10.1038/ng.3937
260.
Xie M, Hong C, Zhang B, Lowdon RF, Xing X, Li D, Zhou X, Lee HJ, Maire CL, Ligon KL, et al (2013 ) DNA hypomethylation within specific transposable element families associates with tissue-specific enhancer landscape. Nat Genet 45: 836–841
Not in our library10.1038/ng.2649
261.
Yan W, Chen D, Schumacher J, Durantini D, Engelhorn J, Chen M, Carles CC, Kaufmann K (2019 ) Dynamic control of enhancer activity drives stage-specific gene expression during flower morphogenesis. Nat Commun 10: 1705
Not in our library10.1038/s41467-019-09513-2
262.
Yang F, Ouma WZ, Li W, Doseff AI, Grotewold E (2016 ) Establishing the architecture of plant gene regulatory networks. Methods Enzymol 576: 251–304
Not in our library10.1016/bs.mie.2016.03.003
263.
Yilmaz A, Nishiyama MY, Fuentes BG, Souza GM, Janies D, Gray J, Grotewold E (2009 ) GRASSIUS: a platform for comparative regulatory genomics across the grasses. Plant Physiol 149: 171–180
Not in our library10.1104/pp.108.128579
264.
Yokosho K, Yamaji N, Fujii-Kashino M, Ma JF (2016 ) Retrotransposon-mediated aluminum tolerance through enhanced expression of the citrate transporter OsFRDL4. Plant Physiol 172: 2327–2336
Not in our library10.1104/pp.16.01214
265.
Yua A, Lepèrea G, Jay F, Wanga J, Bapaumea L, Wangd Y, Abrahama A-L, Penterman J, Fischer RL, Voinnet O, et al (2013 ) Dynamics and biological relevance of DNA demethylation in Arabidopsis antibacterial defense. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110: 2389–2394
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1211757110
266.
Yuan W, Luo X, Li Z, Yang W, Wang Y, Liu R, Du J, He Y (2016 ) A cis cold memory element and a trans epigenome reader mediate polycomb silencing of FLC by vernalization in Arabidopsis. Nat Genet 48: 1527–1534
Not in our library10.1038/ng.3712
267.
Zaret KS, Carroll JS (2011 ) Pioneer transcription factors: establishing competence for gene expression. Genes Dev 25: 2227–2241
Not in our library10.1101/gad.176826.111
268.
Zaret KS, Mango SE (2016 ) Pioneer transcription factors, chromatin dynamics, and cell fate control. Curr Opin Genet Dev 37: 76–81
Not in our library10.1016/j.gde.2015.12.003
269.
Zemach A, McDaniel IE, Silva P, Zilberman D (2010 ) Genome-wide evolutionary analysis of eukaryotic DNA methylation. Science 328: 916–919
Not in our library10.1126/science.1186366
270.
Cold stress induces enhanced chromatin accessibility and bivalent histone modifications H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 of active genes in potato · 2019
No notice
271.
A high-quality apple genome assembly reveals the association of a retrotransposon and red fruit colour · 2019
No notice
272.
The interplay of histone modifications – writers that read · 2015
No notice
273.
Zhang W, Wu Y, Schnable JC, Zeng Z, Freeling M, Crawford GE, Jiang J (2012a ) High-resolution mapping of open chromatin in the rice genome. Genome Res 22: 151–162
Not in our library10.1101/gr.131342.111
274.
Zhang W, Zhang T, Wu Y, Jiang J (2012b ) Genome-wide identification of regulatory DNA elements and protein-binding footprints using signatures of open chromatin in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 24: 2719–2731
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.112.098061
275.
Zhang X, Cal AJ, Borevitz JO (2011 ) Genetic architecture of regulatory variation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genome Res 21: 725–733
Not in our library10.1101/gr.115337.110
276.
Zhang X, Yazaki J, Sundaresan A, Cokus S, Chan SW, Chen H, Henderson IR, Shinn P, Pellegrini M, Jacobsen SE, et al (2006 ). Genome-wide high-resolution mapping and functional analysis of DNA methylation in Arabidopsis. Cell 126: 1189–1201
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2006.08.003
277.
Zhang Y, Li Z, Chen N, Huang Y, Huang S (2020 ) Phase separation of arabidopsis emb1579 controls transcription, mRNA splicing, and development. PLoS Biol 18: 1–34
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pbio.3000782
278.
Zhao H, Zhang W, Chen L, Wang L, Marand AP, Wu Y, Jiang J (2018 ) Proliferation of regulatory DNA elements derived from transposable elements in the maize genome. Plant Physiol 176: 2789–2803
Not in our library10.1104/pp.17.01467
279.
Zhao L, Wang S, Cao Z, Ouyang W, Zhang Q, Xie L, Zheng R, Guo M, Ma M, Hu Z, et al (2019a ) Chromatin loops associated with active genes and heterochromatin shape rice genome architecture for transcriptional regulation. Nat Commun 10: 3640
Not in our library10.1038/s41467-019-11535-9
280.
Integrative analysis of reference epigenomes in 20 rice varieties · 2020
No notice
281.
Zhao S, Cheng L, Gao Y, Zhang B, Zheng X, Wang L, Li P, Sun Q, Li H (2019b ) Plant HP1 protein ADCP1 links multivalent H3K9 methylation readout to heterochromatin formation. Cell Res 29: 54–66
Not in our library10.1038/s41422-018-0104-9
282.
Zheng L, McMullen MD, Bauer E, Schön CC, Gierl A, Frey M (2015 ) Prolonged expression of the BX1 signature enzyme is associated with a recombination hotspot in the benzoxazinoid gene cluster in Zea mays. J Exp Bot 66: 3917–3930
Not in our library10.1093/jxb/erv192
283.
Zhong S, Fei Z, Chen Y-R, Zheng Y, Huang M, Vrebalov J, McQuinn R, Gapper N, Liu B, Xiang J, et al (2013 ) Single-base resolution methylomes of tomato fruit development reveal epigenome modifications associated with ripening. Nat Biotechnol 31: 154–159
Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2462
284.
Zhou J, Ma J, Chen Y, Cheng C, Bao B, Peng J, Sejnowski TJ, Dixon JR, Ecker JR (2019 ) Robust single-cell Hi-C clustering by convolution- and random-walk–based imputation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116: 14011–14018
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1901423116
285.
Zhou P, Enders TA, Myers ZA, Magnusson E, Crisp PA, Noshay J, Gomez-Cano F, Liang Z, Grotewold E, Greenham K, et al (2021 ) Prediction of conserved and variable heat and cold stress response in maize using cis- regulatory information. Plant Cell 34: 852–866
Not in our library10.1093/plcell/koab267
286.
Zhu B, Zhang W, Zhang T, Liu B, Jiang J (2015 ) Genome-wide prediction and validation of intergenic enhancers in Arabidopsis using open chromatin signatures. Plant Cell 27: 2415–2426
Not in our library10.1105/tpc.15.00537
287.
Zhu H, Wang G, Qian J (2016 ) Transcription factors as readers and effectors of DNA methylation. Nat Rev Genet 17: 551–565
Not in our library10.1038/nrg.2016.83
288.
Zicola J, Liu L, Tänzler P, Turck F (2019 ) Targeted DNA methylation represses two enhancers of FLOWERING LOCUS T in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nat Plants 5: 300–307
Not in our library10.1038/s41477-019-0375-2
289.
Zilberman D, Gehring M, Tran RK, Ballinger T, Henikoff S (2007 ) Genome-wide analysis of Arabidopsis thaliana DNA methylation uncovers an interdependence between methylation and transcription. Nat Genet 39: 61–69
Not in our library10.1038/ng1929

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.