Skip to main content
. 2008 May 17;36(11):3746–3756. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn262

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Comparison of energy profile −ΔF (blue line, ordinate units are in kT) with experimentally determined nucleosome occupancy in S. cerevisiae [red line: log2ratio of hybridization data retrieved from (12)]. Red ovals represent nucleosome positions predicted in (12). (A) Representative portion of chromosome III. (B–E) Local views of regions presented in the experimental analysis of nucleosome occupancy (12); (B) HIS3 promoter; (C) CHA1 promoter (note that the theoretical model predicts the presence of a positioned nucleosome separating the divergent promoters. This nucleosome is detected at a lower frequency than predicted, presumably because of the influence of the machineries interacting with the two surrounding promoters); (D, E) local views of chromosome III regions showing both localized and delocalized nucleosomes. In abscissa, units are 100 kb in (A), 1 bp in (B, C), 10 kb in (D, E). The correlation between experimental data and −ΔF values over the whole chromosome III region analysed is r = 0.45, P < 10−15.