Opposing CTCF and GATA4 activities set the pace of chromatin topology remodeling during cardiomyogenesis

Article activity feed

1. 

   Review Commons

   Dec 9, 2025

   Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

   Learn more at Review Commons

   ---

   Reply to the reviewers

   We are grateful to the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive evaluations of our manuscript. Their comments helped us clarify key aspects of the study and strengthen both the presentation and interpretation of our findings. The central goal of this work is to dissect how the opposing activities of GATA4 and CTCF coordinate chromatin topology and transcriptional timing during human cardiomyogenesis. The reviewers’ feedback has allowed us to refine this message and better contextualize our results within the broader framework of chromatin regulation and cardiac development.

   In response to the reviews, in our preliminary revision we have already …

   Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

   Learn more at Review Commons

   ---

   Reply to the reviewers

   We are grateful to the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive evaluations of our manuscript. Their comments helped us clarify key aspects of the study and strengthen both the presentation and interpretation of our findings. The central goal of this work is to dissect how the opposing activities of GATA4 and CTCF coordinate chromatin topology and transcriptional timing during human cardiomyogenesis. The reviewers’ feedback has allowed us to refine this message and better contextualize our results within the broader framework of chromatin regulation and cardiac development.

   In response to the reviews, in our preliminary revision we have already implemented substantial improvements to the manuscript, including additional analyses, clearer data visualization, and revisions to the text to avoid overinterpretation. These refinements enhance the robustness of our conclusions without altering the overall scope of the study. A small number of additional analyses and experiments are ongoing and will be added to the full revision, as detailed below.

   We believe that the revised manuscript, together with the planned updates, fully addresses the reviewers’ concerns and substantially strengthens the contribution of this work to the field.

   Reviewer 1 – Point 1:

   In the datasets you are examining, what are the relative percentages in each of the four groups relating compartmentalization change to expression change (A→B, expression up; A→B, down; B→A, up; B→A, down)?

   We quantified compartment–expression relationships using Hi-C and bulk RNA-seq from H9 ESCs and CMs. The percentages for each category are shown below and incorporated into updated Figure S2H.

   Group

   Downregulated in CM

   Upregulated in CM

   A-to-A

   11.92%

   8.44%

   A-to-B

   18.20%

   2.79%

   B-to-A

   7.96%

   18.07%

   B-to-B

   14.36%

   6.44%

   A chi-squared test comparing observed vs. expected distributions (based on gene density across bins) confirmed a strong association between compartment dynamics and transcriptional behavior. B-to-A genes are significantly enriched among genes upregulated in CMs, while A-to-B genes are enriched among those downregulated (updated Figure S2H).

   We next assessed with GSEA how these gene classes respond to GATA4 and CTCF knockdown. In 2D CMs, GATA4 knockdown reduces expression of CM-upregulated B-to-A genes and increases expression of CM-downregulated A-to-B genes, whereas CTCF knockdown produces the opposite pattern (updated Figure 2F).

   Applying the same analysis to cardioid bulk RNA-seq (updated Figure 4E) revealed the strongest effects in SHF-RV organoids, consistent with monolayer data. In SHF-A organoids, only GATA4 knockdown had a measurable impact on CM-upregulated B-to-A and CM-downregulated A-to-B genes. Because the subsets of CM-downregulated B-to-A and CM-upregulated A-to-B genes were very small and showed no consistent trends, Figure 4 focuses on the two informative categories only. The full classification is provided in Reviewer Figure 1 below.

   (The figure cannot be rendered in this text-only format)

   Reviewer Figure 1.* GSEA for CM-upregulated B-to-A and CM-downregulated A-to-B genes. p-values by Adaptive Monte-Carlo Permutation test.*

   Reviewer 1 – Point 2

   This phrase in the abstract is imprecise: ‘whereas premature CTCF depletion accelerates yet confounds cardiomyocyte maturation.’

   ---

   The abstract has been revised to: “whereas premature CTCF depletion accelerates yet alters cardiomyocyte maturation.” (lines 29-30).

   Reviewer 1 – Point 3

   Regarding this statement: "Disruption of [3D chromatin architecture] has been linked to genetic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) caused by lamin A/C mutations8,9, and mutations in chromatin regulators are strongly enriched in de novo congenital heart defects (CHD)10, underscoring their pathogenic relevance11." The first studies to implicate chromatin structural changes in heart disease, including the role of CTCF in that process, were PMID: 28802249, a model of acquired, rather than genetic, disease.

   We added the following sentence to the paragraph introducing CTCF: “Moreover, depletion of CTCF in the adult cardiomyocytes leads to heart failure28,29.” (line 72)

   Reviewer 1 – Point 4

   Can you quantify this statement: ‘the compartment switch coincided with progressive reduction of promoter–gene body interactions’?

   We quantified promoter–gene body contacts by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) of the virtual 4C signal derived from H9 Hi-C data across differentiation. As a result of this analysis we added the following sentence: “Quantitatively, interactions between the TTN promoter and its gene body decreased by ~55% from the pluripotent stage to day 80 cardiomyocytes.” (lines 89-91).

   ---

   Reviewer 1 – Point 5

   Regarding this statement: "six regions became less accessible in CMs, correlating with ChIP-seq signal for the ubiquitous architectural protein CTCF." I don't see 6 ATAC peaks in either TTN trace in Figure 1A.

   We corrected the text as it follows: “TTN experienced clear changes in chromatin accessibility during CM differentiation: ATAC-seq identified two CM-specific peaks that correlated with ChIP-seq signal for the cardiac pioneer TF GATA4 at the two promoters, one driving full length titin and the other the shorter cronos isoform. In contrast, two regions became less accessible in CMs, correlating with two of the six ChIP-seq peaks for the ubiquitous architectural protein CTCF” (lines 93-97). We attribute the differences between ChIP-seq and ATAC-seq profiles to methodological sensitivity and/or biological variability between datasets generated in different laboratories and cell batches.

   Reviewer 1 – Point 6

   Western blots need molecular weight markers.

   We edited the relevant panels accordingly (updated Figures 1E and 2B).

   Reviewer 1 – Point 7

   Regarding this statement: "The decrease in CTCF protein levels may explain its selective detachment from TTN during cardiomyogenesis." At face value, these findings suggest the opposite: i.e. that a massive downregulation of CTCF at protein level should affect its binding across the genome, which is not tested and is hard to evaluate between ChIP-seq studies from different groups and from different developmental timeframes.

   We revised the text to avoid implying selective detachment and performed a genome-wide analysis of CTCF occupancy using ENCODE ChIP-seq datasets generated by the same laboratory with matched protocols in hESCs and hESC-derived CMs. This analysis shows that 43.2% of CTCF sites present in ESCs are lost in CMs, whereas only 5.7% are gained, confirming a broad reduction in CTCF binding during differentiation. These results are now included in__ updated Figure 1B__.

   Reviewer 1 – Point 8a

   A couple thoughts on the FISH experiments in Figure 2. A claim of 'impaired B-A transition' would be more convincing if you show, by FISH, that the relative distance of TTN from lamin B increases with differentiation.

   Although prior work from us and others has established that TTN transitions from the nuclear periphery in hESCs to a more internal position during cardiomyogenesis (Poleshko et al. 2017; Bertero et al. 2019a), we are reproducing this trajectory in WTC11 hiPSCs as part of the FISH experiments for the full revision.

   __Reviewer 1 – Point 8b __

   In the [FISH] images: are you showing a total projection of all z planes? One assumes the quantitation is relative to a 3D reconstruction in which the lamin B signal is restricted to the periphery. Have you shown this? __

   Quantification was performed on full 3D reconstructions from Z-stacks, as detailed in the Methods (lines 721-727). While the original submission displayed maximum-intensity projections, updated Figure 2D and Figure S2E now show representative single optical sections, which more clearly highlight the spatial relationship between the TTN locus and the nuclear lamina.

   Reviewer 1 – Point 8c

   Lastly, these data are very interesting and important, provoking reexamination of your interpretation of the results in Figure 1. Figure 1 was interpreted to show that less CTCF binding led to decreased lamina (and thus B compartment) association during development. Figure 2 shows that depleting CTCF does not change association of TTN with lamina.

   Our interpretation is that by day 25 of hiPSC-CM differentiation the TTN locus may have reached its maximal radial repositioning even in control cells, limiting the ability to detect earlier effects of CTCF depletion. To test whether CTCF knockdown accelerates lamina detachment at earlier stages, we are repeating the FISH analysis for the inducible CTCF knockdown line at multiple time points during differentiation.

   Reviewer 1 – Point 9

   A thought about this statement: "Altogether, these results suggest that GATA4 and CTCF function as positive and negative regulators of B-to-A compartment switching, likely acting through global and local chromatin remodeling, respectively." GATA4 induces TTN expression and its knockdown prevents TTN expression-the evidence that GATA4 affects compartmentalization is unclear. By activating the gene, GATA4 may shift TTN to B classification.

   Our current data do not allow us to disentangle whether GATA4-driven transcriptional activation precedes or follows the B-to-A compartment shift. We have therefore removed the mechanistic speculation from this sentence to avoid overinterpretation. Nevertheless, the analyses in updated Figure 2F, discussed in the response to Reviewer 1 - Point 1, show that GATA4 knockdown preferentially reduces expression of CM-upregulated B-to-A genes, while CTCF knockdown has the opposite effect, supporting the conclusion that both factors influence the transcriptional programs associated with B-to-A transitions.

   Reviewer 1 – Point 10

   __I'm not sure what I am looking at in Figure 3C. Are those traces integration of interactions over a defined window? "Each [mutant is] clearly different from WT" is not obvious from the presentation. The histograms are plotting AUC of what? Interactions of those peaks with the mutated region? I genuinely appreciate how laborious this experiment must have been and encourage you to explain better what you are showing. __

   We revised the main text to avoid overstating the differences (“clearly” “in a similar manner”, line 192) and expanded the l__egends of updated Figures 3C–D__ to clarify what is being shown: “(C) 4C-seq in hiPSCs using the promoter-proximal region of TTN as viewpoint. The top panel shows raw interaction profiles. The lower panels plot pairwise differences between conditions to reveal subtle changes. A schematic indicating the 4C viewpoint is included for clarity. Right inset: zoom of the CBS4–5 region. Mean of n = 3 cultures. *(D) AUC of the differential 4C-seq signal for defined intervals (panel C). p-values by one-sample t-test against μ = 0.”. *We also added a visual cue in updated Figure 3C indicating the 4C viewpoint to facilitate interpretation.

   Reviewer 1 – Point 11

   Again acknowledging how challenging these experiments are: when you mutant a locus, you change CTCF binding but you also change the DNA. Thus, attributing the changes in interactions to presence/absence of CTCF binding is difficult, because the DNA substrate itself has changed. Perhaps you are presenting all of this as a negative result, given the modest effect on transcription, which is as important as a positive result, given the assumptions usually made about such things. But the results are not clearly described and your interpretation seems to go between implying the structural change causative and being agnostic.

   We recognize that deleting a genomic region can affect both CTCF binding and the DNA substrate itself. For this reason, we implemented two parallel genome-editing strategies:

   (1) a straightforward Cas9-mediated deletion of ~100 bp centered on each CBS, and

   (2) a more precise HDR approach replacing only the 20 bp core CTCF motif.

   Because the HDR strategy succeeded, all downstream analyses were carried out on these minimal edits, which substantially limit disruption of other transcription factor motifs and reduce the likelihood of sequence-dependent polymer effects unrelated to CTCF.

   Nevertheless, to avoid implying unwarranted causality in the absence of more conclusive evidence, we added a paragraph to the Discussion outlining these limitations, including the sentence: “Our study also reflects general challenges in separating chromatin-architectural and transcriptional mechanisms. Although the CBS edits were restricted to the core CTCF motifs, additional sequence-dependent effects cannot be fully excluded, and we therefore interpret the resulting changes as consistent with—but not exclusively due to—loss of CTCF binding.” (lines 365-368)

   Reviewer 1 - Point 12.

   Figure 4C: since you have RNA-seq data, a much more objective way to present these data would be to show all data (again, A-B, up; A-B, down; B-A, up; B-A, down) and the effects of CTCF or GATA4. Regardless, you can still focus on the cardiac specific genes. But my guess is if you examine all genes, the pattern you show in panel C will not be present in the majority of cases. Furthermore, if this hypothesis is wrong, such an analysis will allow you to identify other genes affected by the mechanisms you describe and your analysis will test whether these mechanisms are in fact conserved at different loci.

   As outlined in our response to Point 1, we extended the analysis to all genes undergoing compartment changes and incorporated this into the cardioid RNA-seq dataset. This revealed a clear and consistent relationship between GATA4 or CTCF knockdown and the expression of B-to-A and A-to-B gene classes (updated Figure 4E).

   Reviewer 2 - Point 1.1

   1. CTCF regulation at TTN locus:

   (1) Figure 1A: The claim of the authors about convergent CTCF sites and transcriptional activation of TTN is quite simplistic. This claim is only valid when we know where cohesin is loaded. If cohesin is loaded at then intragenic GATA4 binding site, then the only important CTCF sites is at the promoter of TTN. I suggest that the authors read few more publications which may help the authors to better understand how cohesin and CTCF team up to regulate transcription, such as Hsieh et al., Nature Genetics, 2022; Liu et al., Nature Genetics, 2021; Rinzema et al., Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, 2022.

   __Suggestion: The authors should add cohesin (RAD21/SMC1A) and NIPBL ChIP-seq for better interpretation. __

   In line with the reviewer’s insightful suggestion, we integrated cohesin ChIP-seq data into updated Figure 1A. Specifically, we added a RAD21 ChIP-seq track from hESCs, which provides direct evidence of cohesin occupancy across the TTN locus. RAD21 binding closely parallels CTCF binding at five sites within the gene body, supporting a model in which promoter-proximal CTCF anchors cohesin to stabilize repressive loops at this locus. This analysis substantially strengthens the mechanistic framework and is consistent with the studies recommended by the reviewer, which we have now cited (lines 68 and 104).

   Reviewer 2 - Point 1.2. (2) Figure 3B: If delta2CBS only has heterozygenous deletion of CBS6, why we would expect the binding will be weaken to 50%. However, the CTCF binding is reduced to around 1/10 in the ChIP-qPCR. How do the authors explain this?

   Sequencing of the Δ2CBS line shows that one CBS6 allele carries the intended EcoRI replacement, while the second allele contains a 2-bp deletion within the core CTCF motif (Figure S3C). Remarkably, this small deletion is sufficient to abolish CTCF binding, resulting in complete loss of occupancy at CBS6 despite heterozygosity. We clarified this in the text as follows: “CTCF ChIP-qPCR in hiPSCs confirmed complete loss of CTCF binding at the targeted sites, including CBS6 in the Δ2CBS line, indicating that the 2-bp deletion sufficed to disrupt CTCF binding while occupancy at other CBSs remained unaffected.” (lines 187–189).

   Reviewer 2 - Point 1.3a (3) Figure 3C: There are two problems with the 4C experiments: (a) The changes are really mild. In fact, none of the p-values in Figure 3D are significant.

   The effect of deleting CBS1 is indeed modest, consistent with reports that individual CTCF binding sites often show functional redundancy (i.e., Rodríguez-Carballo et al. 2017; Barutcu et al. 2018; Kang et al. 2021). Nevertheless, our 4C-seq experiments have reproducibly shown the same directional trend across biological replicates. To increase statistical power and more rigorously assess the robustness of this effect, we are generating additional 4C replicates as part of the full revision.

   Reviewer 2 - Point 1.3b [In the 4C experiments] (b) The authors should also consider a model that CTCF directly serves as a repressor. In this way, 3D genome may not be involved. B-A switch is simply caused by the activation of the locus.

   We now explicitly acknowledge this possibility in the Discussion. The revised text states: “Moreover, our data cannot unambiguously separate CTCF’s architectural role from potential direct repressive activity. Both mechanisms could contribute to the observed effects, and our findings likely reflect the combined influence of CTCF on chromatin topology and gene regulation.” (lines 368–371).

   Reviewer 2 - Point 2.1a 2. __(CTCF) detachment: The authors mentioned few times "detachment". In the context of this manuscript, the authors indicate detachment from nuclear lamina. However, the authors haven't provide convincing evidence about this. __

   In the two instances where we used the term “detachment,” we intended it to refer exclusively to reduced CTCF binding to DNA, not to lamina repositioning. To avoid ambiguity, we have replaced “detachment” with “reduced binding” in both locations (lines 123 and 329). We do not use this term to describe TTN–lamina positioning.

   Reviewer 2 - Point 2.1b (1) Figure 1D: I doubt whether such changes of CTCF protein abundance will lead to LAD detachment. Suggest the authors read van Schaik et al., Genome Biology, 2022. With the full depletion of CTCF, the effects on LADs are still very restricted.

   We agree that the observed correlation between reduced CTCF levels and the relocation of TTN away from a LAD does not establish causality. As outlined in our response to Reviewer 1 – Point 8c, we are performing additional FISH experiments at earlier differentiation stages in the CTCF inducible knockdown line to directly assess whether partial CTCF depletion is sufficient to alter the timing of TTN–lamina separation.

   Reviewer 2 - Point 2.2 (2) Figure 2D: Lamin B1 should be mostly at nuclear periphery. I have few questions: (1) is the antibody specific? (2) do these cells carry mutation in LMNB1 gene? (3) is the staining actually LMNA?

   As also clarified in response to Reviewer 1 – Point 8b, the original images displayed maximum-intensity projections of Z-stacks, which obscured the peripheral distribution of LMNB1. We have updated Figure 2D and Figure S2E to show representative individual optical sections, which more clearly display the expected peripheral LMNB1 signal. We also confirm that the antibody used is specific for LMNB1 and previously validated (Bertero et al. 2019b), and that the WTC11-derived lines used in this study carry no mutation in LMNB1.

   Reviewer 2 - Point 3

   3. Opposite functions of GATA4 and CTCF: These data in Figure 5E-H argues the opposite role of GATA4 and CTCF in transcriptional regulation. Would it be that CTCF KD just affected cell proliferation, which is actually known for many cell types, rather than affect CM differentiation process? If this is the reason, inversed correlation between CTCF KD and GATA4 KD in Figure 4D could also be explained by opposite effects on cell cycle.

   We directly evaluated this possibility. In FHF–LV cardioids, cell cycle profiling in Figure 6C and Figure S6C (now S7C) showed that CTCF knockdown does not alter the distribution of CMs across G1/S/G2–M phases, in contrast to the marked increase in proliferation observed with GATA4 knockdown.

   Because this comment referred specifically to the SHF data, we also analyzed mitotic gene expression in the SHF–RV bulk RNA-seq dataset using GSEA. CTCF knockdown did not significantly enrich any cell cycle–related gene sets, whereas GATA4 knockdown produced a strong enrichment for mitotic cell cycle terms, in line with FHF-LV data (Reviewer Figure 2).

   These results are summarized in updated Figure S5C, reporting also the results of the broader GSEA analysis, and together indicate that the transcriptional divergence between CTCF and GATA4 knockdown is not simply explained by opposing effects on proliferation.

   (The figure cannot be rendered in this text-only format)

   Reviewer Figure 2.* GSEA for mitotic cell cycle in *SHF-RV after inducible knockdown of CTCF (left) or GATA4 (right). p-values by Adaptive Monte-Carlo Permutation test.

   __Reviewer 2 - Point 4

   1. In discussion, the authors suggested that CTCF is a local chromatin remodeller. In my view, association with local chromatin compaction doesn't qualify CTCF as a chromatin remodeler. To my knowledge, CTCF does not have an enzymatic domain, then how does it remodel chromatin?__

   Our intended meaning was that CTCF shapes 3D chromatin architecture through its role in organizing intergenic looping, not that it remodels chromatin enzymatically. To avoid confusion, we have removed the original sentence from the Discussion.

   __Reviewer 2 - Point 5.

   1. Some conclusions are drawn based on insignificant p-values, e.g. Figure 2F, Figure 3D, etc. The authors should be careful about their conclusion, and tone down their statement for the observations have borderline significance.__

   The conclusions based on bulk RNA-seq have been revised in response to Reviewer 1 – Point 1 (updated Figure 2F). By subsetting B-to-A and A-to-B genes according to their expression dynamics, this analysis now yields clearer and statistically significant differences between conditions.

   Regarding the 4C-seq data, as acknowledged in Reviewer 2 – Point 3a, the observed effects are modest. We are generating additional biological replicates to increase statistical power. In the meantime, we have adjusted the text to avoid overstating these findings. The revised manuscript now states: “While the difference did not reach significance, these trends suggest …” (lines 199–200).

   __Reviewer 2 - Minor comment 1. Minor comments:

   1. Figure 1A: (1) I suggest to label two promoters in the gene model. It's unclear in the figure in the current version; (2) I was a bit confused with the way how the authors labeled CTCF directionality. I thought there are a lot of promoters. Why didn't they use triangles?__

   We updated Figure 1A to label both TTN promoters and indicate their orientation. For CTCF sites, we now clearly display the motif direction and core binding region as determined by FIMO analysis of the CTCF ChIP-seq peaks, improving consistency and interpretability.

   __Reviewer 2 - Minor comment 2.

   1. Figure 2C: I think the drastical reduction of titin-mEGFP levels is only due to the way how the authors analyze their FACS data. Can the author quantify on median fluorescence intensity?__

   The gating strategy for titin-mEGFP⁺ cells was defined using a reporter-negative control, and cells lacking TNNT2 expression showed no detectable titin-mEGFP signal, confirming the specificity of the gate. To complement this analysis, we also quantified the median fluorescence intensity (MFI) of titin-mEGFP⁺ cells. The MFI analysis corroborates the original findings, showing a significant decrease in GATA4 knockdown and an increase in CTCF knockdown (updated Figure S2D).

   __Reviewer 2 - Minor comment 3.

   1. Figure S2G: P value should be -log10, I assume. Please label it accurately. __

   We appreciate the reviewer pointing out this labeling error. In the revised manuscript, this panel has been removed to accommodate the updated compartment–expression analysis now presented in updated Figure 2H (see response to Reviewer 1 – Point 1), and the issue is no longer applicable.

   References

   Barutcu AR, Maass PG, Lewandowski JP, Weiner CL, Rinn JL. 2018. A TAD boundary is preserved upon deletion of the CTCF-rich Firre locus. *Nat Commun *9: 1444.

   Bertero A, Fields PA, Ramani V, Bonora G, Yardımcı GG, Reinecke H, Pabon L, Noble WS, Shendure J, Murry CE. 2019a. Dynamics of genome reorganization during human cardiogenesis reveal an RBM20-dependent splicing factory. *Nature communications *10: 1538.

   Bertero A, Fields PA, Smith AS, Leonard A, Beussman K, Sniadecki NJ, Kim D-H, Tse H-F, Pabon L, Shendure J, et al. 2019b. Chromatin compartment dynamics in a haploinsufficient model of cardiac laminopathy. *Journal of Cell Biology *218: 2919–44.

   Kang J, Kim YW, Park S, Kang Y, Kim A. 2021. Multiple CTCF sites cooperate with each other to maintain a TAD for enhancer–promoter interaction in the β-globin locus. *The FASEB Journal *35: e21768.

   Poleshko A, Shah PP, Gupta M, Babu A, Morley MP, Manderfield LJ, Ifkovits JL, Calderon D, Aghajanian H, Sierra-Pagán JE, et al. 2017. Genome-Nuclear Lamina Interactions Regulate Cardiac Stem Cell Lineage Restriction. *Cell *171: 573–587.

   Rodríguez-Carballo E, Lopez-Delisle L, Zhan Y, Fabre PJ, Beccari L, El-Idrissi I, Huynh THN, Ozadam H, Dekker J, Duboule D. 2017. The HoxD cluster is a dynamic and resilient TAD boundary controlling the segregation of antagonistic regulatory landscapes. *Genes Dev *31: 2264–2281.

   Read the original source
2. 

   Review Commons

   Dec 9, 2025

   Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

   Learn more at Review Commons

   ---

   Referee #2

   Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

   Becca et al. characterized the functions of GATA4 and CTCF in the context of cardiomyogenesis. The authors aim to establish a link between 3D genome changes (A/B compartment and long-range chromatin interactions) and activation of cardiac specific genes such as TTN. They showed opposite effects of GATA4 and CTCF in regulating these genes as well as phenotypical traits. I have the following suggestions and questions:

   Major comments:

   1. CTCF regulation at TTN locus:

   (1) Figure 1A: The claim of the authors about convergent CTCF sites and transcriptional activation of TTN is quite simplistic. This claim is only valid when we know where …

   Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

   Learn more at Review Commons

   ---

   Referee #2

   Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

   Becca et al. characterized the functions of GATA4 and CTCF in the context of cardiomyogenesis. The authors aim to establish a link between 3D genome changes (A/B compartment and long-range chromatin interactions) and activation of cardiac specific genes such as TTN. They showed opposite effects of GATA4 and CTCF in regulating these genes as well as phenotypical traits. I have the following suggestions and questions:

   Major comments:

   1. CTCF regulation at TTN locus:

   (1) Figure 1A: The claim of the authors about convergent CTCF sites and transcriptional activation of TTN is quite simplistic. This claim is only valid when we know where cohesin is loaded. If cohesin is loaded at then intragenic GATA4 binding site, then the only important CTCF sites is at the promoter of TTN. I suggest that the authors read few more publications which may help the authors to better understand how cohesin and CTCF team up to regulate transcription, such as Hsieh et al., Nature Genetics, 2022; Liu et al., Nature Genetics, 2021; Rinzema et al., Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, 2022.

   Suggestion: The authors should add cohesin (RAD21/SMC1A) and NIPBL ChIP-seq for better interpretation. (2) Figure 3B: If delta2CBS only has heterozygenous deletion of CBS6, why we would expect the binding will be weaken to 50%. However, the CTCF binding is reduced to around 1/10 in the ChIP-qPCR. How do the authors explain this?

   (3) Figure 3C: There are two problems with the 4C experiments: (a) The changes are really mild. In fact, none of the p-values in Figure 3D are significant; (b) The authors should also consider a model that CTCF directly serves as a repressor. In this way, 3D genome may not be involved. B-A switch is simply caused by the activation of the locus.

   1. (CTCF) detachment: The authors mentioned few times "detachment". In the context of this manuscript, the authors indicate detachment from nuclear lamina. However, the authors haven't provide convincing evidence about this.

   (1) Figure 1D: I doubt whether such changes of CTCF protein abundance will lead to LAD detachment. Suggest the authors read van Schaik et al., Genome Biology, 2022. With the full depletion of CTCF, the effects on LADs are still very restricted.

   (2) Figure 2D: Lamin B1 should be mostly at nuclear periphery. I have few questions: (1) is the antibody specific? (2) do these cells carry mutation in LMNB1 gene? (3) is the staining actually LMNA?

   1. Opposite functions of GATA4 and CTCF: These data in Figure 5E-H argues the opposite role of GATA4 and CTCF in transcriptional regulation. Would it be that CTCF KD just affected cell proliferation, which is actually known for many cell types, rather than affect CM differentiation process? If this is the reason, inversed correlation between CTCF KD and GATA4 KD in Figure 4D could also be explained by opposite effects on cell cycle.
   2. In discussion, the authors suggested that CTCF is a local chromatin remodeller. In my view, association with local chromatin compaction doesn't qualify CTCF as a chromatin remodeler. To my knowledge, CTCF does not have an enzymatic domain, then how does it remodel chromatin?
   3. Some conclusions are drawn based on insignificant p-values, e.g. Figure 2F, Figure 3D, etc. The authors should be careful about their conclusion, and tone down their statement for the observations have borderline significance.

   Minor comments:

   1. Figure 1A: (1) I suggest to label two promoters in the gene model. It's unclear in the figure in the current version; (2) I was a bit confused with the way how the authors labeled CTCF directionality. I thought there are a lot of promoters. Why didn't they use triangles?
   2. Figure 2C: I think the drastical reduction of titin-mEGFP levels is only due to the way how the authors analyze their FACS data. Can the author quantify on median fluorescence intensity?
   3. Figure S2G: P value should be -log10, I assume. Please label it accurately.

   Significance

   Strengths and limitations:

   I feel that single-cell analysis and functional analysis of GATA4 and CTCF using cardiac organoid model are elegant. However, the weak part of the manuscript is the link between 3D genome and activation of TTN. I also think the authors should include more possible explanations for the interpretation of some genome organization data (CTCF site deletion, 4C, etc).

   Advance: The study does provide useful information to understand transcriptional regulation during cardiac lineage specification. The link between 3D genome and cardiac lineage specification is conceptually nice but needs more data to support.

   Audience: developmental biologists who is interested in heart development and molecular biologists with specific interests in gene regulation.

   Read the original source
3. 

   Review Commons

   Dec 9, 2025

   Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

   Learn more at Review Commons

   ---

   Referee #1

   Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

   This manuscript by Becca and others examines the relationship between GATA4 and CTCF in chromatin organization and cardiac maturation. There are several very interesting observations that lead to potentially new insights into the relationship between genome folding, gene expression and the relationship between transcription factors and chromatin structural proteins. To better justify their interpretations and provide a more objective analysis of the data, the authors may consider the following:

   In the datasets you are examining, what are the relative percentages in each of the four groups relating compartmentalization change to …

   Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

   Learn more at Review Commons

   ---

   Referee #1

   Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

   This manuscript by Becca and others examines the relationship between GATA4 and CTCF in chromatin organization and cardiac maturation. There are several very interesting observations that lead to potentially new insights into the relationship between genome folding, gene expression and the relationship between transcription factors and chromatin structural proteins. To better justify their interpretations and provide a more objective analysis of the data, the authors may consider the following:

   In the datasets you are examining, what are the relative percentages in each of the four groups relating compartmentalization change to expression change (A to B, expression up; A-B, down; B-A, up; B-A, down)?

   This phrase in the abstract is imprecise: "whereas premature CTCF depletion accelerates yet confounds cardiomyocyte maturation."

   Regarding this statement: "Disruption of [3D chromatin architecture] has been linked to genetic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) caused by lamin A/C mutations8,9, and mutations in chromatin regulators are strongly enriched in de novo congenital heart defects (CHD)10, underscoring their pathogenic relevance11." The first studies to implicate chromatin structural changes in heart disease, including the role of CTCF in that process, were PMID: 28802249, a model of acquired, rather than genetic, disease.

   Can you quantify this statement: "the compartment switch coincided with progressive reduction of promoter-gene body interactions"?

   Regarding this statement: "six regions became less accessible in CMs, correlating with ChIP-seq signal for the ubiquitous architectural protein CTCF." I don't see 6 ATAC peaks in either TTN trace in Figure 1A.

   Western blots need molecular weight markers.

   Regarding this statement: "The decrease in CTCF protein levels may explain its selective detachment from TTN during cardiomyogenesis." At face value, these findings suggest the opposite: i.e. that a massive downregulation of CTCF at protein level should affect its binding across the genome, which is not tested and is hard to evaluate between ChIP-seq studies from different groups and from different developmental timeframes.

   A couple thoughts on the FISH experiments in Figure 2. A claim of 'impaired B-A transition' would be more convincing if you show, by FISH, that the relative distance of TTN from lamin B increases with differentiation. In the images: are you showing a total projection of all z planes? One assumes the quantitation is relative to a 3D reconstruction in which the lamin B signal is restricted to the periphery. Have you shown this? Lastly, these data are very interesting and important, provoking reexamination of your interpretation of the results in Figure 1. Figure 1 was interpreted to show that less CTCF binding led to decreased lamina (and thus B compartment) association during development. Figure 2 shows that depleting CTCF does not change association of TTN with lamina.

   A thought about this statement: "Altogether, these results suggest that GATA4 and CTCF function as positive and negative regulators of B-to-A compartment switching, likely acting through global and local chromatin remodeling, respectively." GATA4 induces TTN expression and its knockdown prevents TTN expression-the evidence that GATA4 affects compartmentalization is unclear. By activating the gene, GATA4 may shift TTN to B classification.

   I'm not sure what I am looking at in Figure 3C. Are those traces integration of interactions over a defined window? "Each [mutant is] clearly different from WT" is not obvious from the presentation. The histograms are plotting AUC of what? Interactions of those peaks with the mutated region? I genuinely appreciate how laborious this experiment must have been and encourage you to explain better what you are showing.

   Again acknowledging how challenging these experiments are: when you mutant a locus, you change CTCF binding but you also change the DNA. Thus, attributing the changes in interactions to presence/absence of CTCF binding is difficult, because the DNA substrate itself has changed. Perhaps you are presenting all of this as a negative result, given the modest effect on transcription, which is as important as a positive result, given the assumptions usually made about such things. But the results are not clearly described and your interpretation seems to go between implying the structural change causative and being agnostic.

   Figure 4C: since you have RNA-seq data, a much more objective way to present these data would be to show all data (again, A-B, up; A-B, down; B-A, up; B-A, down) and the effects of CTCF or GATA4. Regardless, you can still focus on the cardiac specific genes. But my guess is if you examine all genes, the pattern you show in panel C will not be present in the majority of cases. Furthermore, if this hypothesis is wrong, such an analysis will allow you to identify other genes affected by the mechanisms you describe and your analysis will test whether these mechanisms are in fact conserved at different loci.

   Significance

   This manuscript by Becca and others examines the relationship between GATA4 and CTCF in chromatin organization and cardiac maturation. There are several very interesting observations that lead to potentially new insights into the relationship between genome folding, gene expression and the relationship between transcription factors and chromatin structural proteins.

   Read the original source
4. 

   Version published to 10.1101/2025.10.07.680441 on bioRxiv

   Oct 7, 2025