Two different models have been proposed to explain how the endpoints of chromatin looped domains (‘TADs’) in eukaryotic chromosomes are determined. In the first, a cohesin complex extrudes a loop until it encounters a boundary element roadblock, generating a stem-loop. In this model, boundaries are functionally autonomous: they have an intrinsic ability to halt the movement of incoming cohesin complexes that is independent of the properties of neighboring boundaries. In the second, loops are generated by boundary:boundary pairing. In this model, boundaries are functionally non-autonomous, and their ability to form a loop depends upon how well they match with their neighbors. Moreover, unlike the loop-extrusion model, pairing interactions can generate both stem-loops and circle-loops. We have used a combination of MicroC to analyze how TADs are organized, and experimental manipulations of the even skipped TAD boundary, homie, to test the predictions of the ‘loop-extrusion’ and the ‘boundary-pairing’ models. Our findings are incompatible with the loop-extrusion model, and instead suggest that the endpoints of TADs in flies are determined by a mechanism in which boundary elements physically pair with their partners, either head-to-head or head-to-tail, with varying degrees of specificity. Although our experiments do not address how partners find each other, the mechanism is unlikely to require loop extrusion.

The chromosomes in multicellular eukaryotes are organized into a series of topologically independent loops called TADs. In flies, TADs are formed by physical interactions between neighboring boundaries. Fly boundaries exhibit distinct partner preferences, and pairing interactions between boundaries are typically orientation-dependent. Pairing can be head-to-tail or head-to-head. The former generates a stem-loop TAD, while the latter gives a circle-loop TAD. The TAD that encompasses the Drosophila even skipped (eve) gene is formed by the head-to-tail pairing of the nhomie and homie boundaries. To explore the relationship between loop topology and the physical and regulatory landscape, we flanked the nhomie boundary region with two attP sites. The attP sites were then used to generate four boundary replacements: λ DNA, nhomie forward (WT orientation), nhomie reverse (opposite of WT orientation), and homie forward (same orientation as WT homie). The nhomie forward replacement restores the WT physical and regulatory landscape: in MicroC experiments, the eve TAD is a ‘volcano’ triangle topped by a plume, and the eve gene and its regulatory elements are sequestered from interactions with neighbors. The λ DNA replacement lacks boundary function: the endpoint of the ‘new’ eve TAD on the nhomie side is ill-defined, and eve stripe enhancers activate a nearby gene, eIF3j. While nhomie reverse and homie forward restore the eve TAD, the topology is a circle-loop, and this changes the local physical and regulatory landscape. In MicroC experiments, the eve TAD interacts with its neighbors, and the plume at the top of the eve triangle peak is converted to a pair of ‘clouds’ of contacts with the next-door TADs. Consistent with the loss of isolation afforded by the stem-loop topology, the eve enhancers weakly activate genes in the neighboring TADs. Conversely, eve function is partially disrupted.