Researcher profile

David C. Schwartz

David C. Schwartz contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Biological Physics Biomolecules Genomics physics.chem-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - Baseline

2works

0followers

4topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2016arXiv

Tension-dependent Free Energies of Nucleosome Unwrapping

Nucleosomes form the basic unit of compaction within eukaryotic genomes and their locations represent an important, yet poorly understood, mechanism of genetic regulation. Quantifying the strength of interactions within the nucleosome is a central problem in biophysics and is critical to understanding how nucleosome positions influence gene expression. By comparing to single-molecule experiments, we demonstrate that a coarse-grained molecular model of the nucleosome can reproduce key aspects of nucleosome unwrapping. Using detailed simulations of DNA and histone proteins, we calculate the tension-dependent free energy surface corresponding to the unwrapping process. The model reproduces quantitatively the forces required to unwrap the nucleosome, and reveals the role played by electrostatic interactions during this process. We then demonstrate that histone modifications and DNA sequence can have significant effects on the energies of nucleosome formation. Most notably, we show that histone tails are crucial for stabilizing the outer turn of nucleosomal DNA.

preprint2013arXiv

Assemblathon 2: evaluating de novo methods of genome assembly in three vertebrate species

Background - The process of generating raw genome sequence data continues to become cheaper, faster, and more accurate. However, assembly of such data into high-quality, finished genome sequences remains challenging. Many genome assembly tools are available, but they differ greatly in terms of their performance (speed, scalability, hardware requirements, acceptance of newer read technologies) and in their final output (composition of assembled sequence). More importantly, it remains largely unclear how to best assess the quality of assembled genome sequences. The Assemblathon competitions are intended to assess current state-of-the-art methods in genome assembly. Results - In Assemblathon 2, we provided a variety of sequence data to be assembled for three vertebrate species (a bird, a fish, and snake). This resulted in a total of 43 submitted assemblies from 21 participating teams. We evaluated these assemblies using a combination of optical map data, Fosmid sequences, and several statistical methods. From over 100 different metrics, we chose ten key measures by which to assess the overall quality of the assemblies. Conclusions - Many current genome assemblers produced useful assemblies, containing a significant representation of their genes, regulatory sequences, and overall genome structure. However, the high degree of variability between the entries suggests that there is still much room for improvement in the field of genome assembly and that approaches which work well in assembling the genome of one species may not necessarily work well for another.