abstract: The possibility that experiments at high-energy accelerators could create new forms of matter that would ultimately destroy the Earth has been considered several times in the past quarter century. One consequence of the earliest of these disaster scenarios was that the authors of a 1993 article in *Physics Today* who reviewed the experiments that had been carried out at the Bevalac at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory were placed on the FBI's Unabomber watch list. Later, concerns that experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory might create mini black holes or nuggets of stable strange quark matter resulted in a flurry of articles in the popular press. I discuss this history, as well as Richard A. Posner's provocative analysis and recommendations on how to deal with such scientific risks. I conclude that better communication between scientists and nonscientists would serve to assuage unreasonable fears and focus attention on truly serious potential threats to humankind.
author: Joseph I. Kapusta[^1]
title: **Accelerator Disaster Scenarios, the Unabomber, and Scientific Risks**

: Wladek Swiatecki; Subal Das Gupta; Gary D. Westfall; Theodore J. Kaczynski; Frank Wilczek; John Marburger III; Richard A. Posner; Bevalac; Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC); Large Hadron Collider (LHC); Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; CERN; Unabomber; Federal Bureau of Investigation; nuclear physics; accelerators; abnormal nuclear matter; density isomer; black hole; strange quark matter; scientific risks.

# Introduction

I was a graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley in 1975, exploring the possibility of doing research in theoretical nuclear physics, when I learned that a state of abnormal nuclear matter might be created in heavy-ion collisions in a new accelerator complex, the Bevalac, which was then just going into operation at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL).[^2] A small group of physicists had examined the possibility that this new state of nuclear matter might grow by accretion and within a matter of seconds gobble up the entire Earth.

One consequence of this disaster scenario was that two of my friends and colleagues who had published an article in *Physics Today* about these experiments at the Bevalac were placed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's bomb watch list in 1994 for fear that they might be targets of the Unabomber. Later, related disaster scenarios were examined for experiments that were proposed to be carried out at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) beginning in 1999, and other experiments that will soon be carried out at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.

I discuss these disaster scenarios below, as well as Richard A. Posner's provocative analysis and recommendations for dealing with such potential scientific risks.

# Graduate Research at Berkeley

I entered graduate school at the University of California at Berkeley in the fall of 1974 knowing that I wanted to be a theoretical physicist. I passed the preliminary examination in physics on my first attempt one year later and then began talking to faculty members about research possibilities in general relativity, particle theory, and nuclear physics. No one was working on general relativity either in the Physics Department or at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), but someone was in the Mathematics Department. I love mathematics (I had majored in both physics and mathematics as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin in Madison), but I wanted to do graduate research in a field that had some contact with experiment. As I discovered, some physicists have a poor image of mathematicians. I attended an awards ceremony in the Physics Department in the spring of 1976 where a retiring faculty member gave a colloquium on the history of architecture on the Berkeley campus. Showing a slide of the Mathematics building – a high, modern concrete structure completely out of character with the rest of campus – the speaker said: "And then there is the math building. It is made up of little cubicles. In each cubicle resides a mathematician. The mathematician is not allowed to leave in the evening until he or she proves a theorem ... or at least a lemma." Not very exciting.

I (figure 1) next spoke with several elementary-particle theorists.

This was 1975, not long after the work of Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam, Steven Weinberg, Gerard 't Hooft, and others on the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interactions, the discovery by David J. Gross and Frank Wilczek and H. David Politzer of asymptotic freedom in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) and the rise to power of QCD in strong-interaction physics, and the experimental discovery by Samuel Ting and Burton Richter of the $J/\psi$ particle at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). Every elementary-particle theorist I talked to said: "Why do you want a Ph.D. in elementary-particle theory? There aren't any jobs!" Not very encouraging.

Finally, I walked to the Chemistry Department[^3] and climbed "the hill" to LBL to talk with some theoretical nuclear physicists. I had a very good conversation with Wladek Swiatecki (figure 2),

who showed me a chart he had made of nuclear radius (which is proportional to the cube root of the atomic weight A) or atomic number Z *versus* beam energy (figure 3).

He pointed out that the frontier in understanding nuclear structure (represented by the vertical axis) was in the regime of super-heavy nuclei, which depends more upon advances in experiment than in theory. Further, the goal of high-energy elementary-particle physics (represented by the horizontal axis) was to discover new elementary particles and to deduce their interactions at smaller and smaller distances. Everything else was virgin territory: By colliding large, heavy nuclei at higher and higher energies, new and unexplored regimes of high-density nuclear matter would be encountered. The supersonic regime (collision speed greater than the speed of sound in nuclear matter) would be followed by the mesonic regime (where pion production becomes copious) and then by the relativistic regime (where it is necessary to invoke relativity to describe very dense nuclear matter).

Swiatecki told me, in fact, that Tsung-Dao Lee[^4] and Gian-Carlo Wick had recently speculated that a new state of nuclear matter might exist at high density where the effective nucleon mass becomes very small, and that this new state, which had to be described by relativistic quantum-field theory, might be metastable or even more stable than ordinary nuclear matter . This, however, was only speculation, so experiments had to be carried out to search for this new type of nuclear matter – and now was the time and LBL was the place to do it! He and others had proposed to connect existing accelerators together to accelerate a beam of large, heavy nuclei to high energy – to several GeV (giga-electron volts) per beam – and to smash them into a target of large, heavy nuclei to study the behavior of nuclear matter at high energy. Their plan was to connect the low-energy heavy-ion accelerator SuperHILAC to the Bevatron[^5] with a transfer line and to call the resulting complex the Bevalac. The Bevatron (figure 4)[^6] could be seen outside Swiatecki's window.

It was built in 1954 to discover the antiproton at a beam energy of 6.2 GeV, for which Owen Chamberlain and Emilio Segré shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1959.

This seemed to me to be a great opportunity for research. I could get in on the ground floor of a new subfield of physics that would combine aspects of both nuclear and particle physics; I would have to understand and use relativistic quantum-field theory; and I could explore possible applications to the structure of neutron stars and the evolution of the early universe. The Nuclear Science Division at LBL was then at the center of heavy-ion physics. Swiatecki at LBL and Korgut Bardacki in the Physics Department agreed to serve as my advisors. I completed my Ph.D. degree in 1978, publishing the research I had carried out for my thesis in papers on the nuclear fireball and firestreak models of high-energy nuclear collisions and on QCD at high temperature .

# The Bevalac and Abnormal Nuclear Matter

The primary purpose in combining the SuperHILAC and the Bevatron to form the Bevalac was to create dense nuclear matter in the laboratory for a brief moment of time. During 1974-1975 the first beams of carbon and oxygen nuclei were accelerated up to 2.1 GeV per nucleon and smashed into various nuclear targets. An upgrade was necessary to accelerate uranium nuclei, and in 1981-1982 uranium was accelerated to 1 GeV per nucleon beam energy. Two major detectors, the Plastic Ball and the Streamer Chamber, were used to measure the spectra of pions, protons, deuterons, helium-3, helium-4, and heavier fragments that were produced. Ten-to-twenty physicists comprised these collaborations, which was large by experimental nuclear-physics standards at the time but small compared to those in experimental high-energy physics. The Bevalac was turned off for the last time in 1993, having been eclipsed in energy by the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) on Long Island, New York, and by the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland.

When the experimental program at the Bevalac began, no one really knew what to expect when nuclear matter was compressed to three-to-four times the density of atomic nuclei. Since the Fermi momentum increases with density, relativistic quantum-field theory eventually has to be employed to describe the system. As noted above, in 1974 Lee and Wick suggested that in a limited domain of space a neutral scalar field may acquire an abnormal value (when compared to the rest of the universe), and that this state may be metastable . If the scalar field has sufficiently strong coupling to nucleons, then their masses would be greatly decreased, leading to a yet-unobserved physical system. They suggested that this might occur inside a heavy nucleus, but compressing nuclei in heavy-ion collisions was an obvious way to search for this new state of nuclear matter.

The qualitative curves of energy per nucleon ($E/N$) *versus* the number of nucleons per unit volume or density of nucleons ($N/V$) shown in figure 5 illustrate these possibilities.

The curve on the left, which has a global minimum at the position of ordinary atomic nuclei, illustrates the usual picture. The curve in the middle shows a metastable "Lee-Wick abnormal state" at some density above the density in atomic nuclei; this state would eventually decay to the lower-energy state. The curve on the right illustrates an extreme case in which the "Lee-Wick abnormal matter" lies lower in energy than normal nuclear matter; in this case, ordinary nuclei would eventually decay into this new state of nuclear matter. Our knowledge about high-density nuclear matter was so poor at this time that no one could rule out these last two possibilities.

Lee and Wick actually were not the first to publish such a speculation: In 1971 Arnold Bodmer suggested on the basis of quark models and soft interactions between nucleons that collapsed nuclei might be formed . He called the abnormal states shown in figure 5 isomers in analogy to molecular isomeric states,[^7] but they soon came to be called "density isomers." For whatever reason, however, Lee and Wick, rather than Bodmer, are usually cited as the originators of the concept of "abnormal" or "isomeric" nuclear states.

No one had a clear idea about how the formation of such new abnormal or isomeric states of nuclear matter could be identified in heavy-ion collisions at the Bevalac. Some said, with tongue-in-cheek, that: "Heavy-ion collisions will compress the nuclei to such a degree that abnormal nuclear matter will be formed in the core of the compressed nuclei. This abnormal nuclear matter, being more stable than ordinary matter, will accrete stuff around it and grow to visible size. Being so massive it will drop to the floor of the experimental hall where one can weigh it and measure its radius, thereby determining its density!" Such an object, however, would be denser than ordinary nuclear matter ($2 \times 10^{14}$ grams per cubic centimeter) and hence cannot be supported by steel or concrete and would fall to the center of the Earth! Further, what would prevent it from growing larger and larger until it would occupy the entire Earth? Simple estimates suggested that this could occur in a matter of seconds – and if it did no physicist would be around to be blamed for it! Moreover, it guaranteed that no physicist would ever win a Nobel Prize for the discovery of stable abnormal nuclear matter, since either this new state of nuclear matter does not exist, or the world would end before the Prize could be awarded. No one took all of this too seriously, and experiments with colliding beams of light and intermediate-mass nuclei proceeded apace.

# The Unabomber

The case of the Unabomber was one of the most difficult ones ever faced by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) . Between 1978 and 1995, the Unabomber sent bombs through the U.S. mail that detonated when the package was opened, killing three people and maiming or injuring twenty-three more. The perpetrator was called the Unabomber because he initially targeted scientists, engineers, or technicians working at universities and airlines (UNiversityAirlineBOMBER). Despite enormous efforts in analyzing letters and other clues, the FBI failed to identify the Unabomber. Then, in 1995, The *Washington Post* and *The New York Times* published an eight-page manifesto written by the Unabomber after obtaining a promise that by doing so the bombings would stop . The Unabomber apparently believed that certain applications of science, engineering, and technology were highly detrimental to human society and had to be stopped; this end justified his means.

One man suspected that his brother was the Unabomber after he noticed a strong similarity in the style of writing between the Unabomber's manifesto and the letters he had received from his brother. He transmitted his suspicion to the FBI under the condition that if his brother indeed was the Unabomber and was found guilty of his crimes, he would not receive the death penalty. On April 3, 1996, Theodore (Ted) J. Kaczynski was arrested at his shack near Lincoln, Montana (figure 6), which he had constructed himself and had lived in until then.

Kaczynski had earned a B.A. degree in mathematics from Harvard University in 1962 and a Ph.D. degree in mathematics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1967, specializing in geometric function theory, a branch of complex analysis. That fall he was appointed to an assistant professorship in the Mathematics Department at the University of California at Berkeley, from which he resigned without explanation in 1969. Calvin Moore, Vice Chairman of the Mathematics Department in 1968, said that "I think he could have advanced along the lines and been a senior member of the faculty." Kaczynski is now serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole at the Supermax prison in Colorado.

The FBI had placed my good friends and colleagues Subal Das Gupta, Professor of Physics at McGill University in Montreal, and Gary Westfall, Professor of Physics at Michigan State University in East Lansing, on its bomb watch list about a year before Kaczynski's arrest. Westfall allowed the FBI to search his mail for bombs hidden in packages until a month after Kaczynski's arrest; nothing was ever found. Das Gupta (figure 7),

as a Canadian citizen, could refuse to allow the FBI to search his mail, which he did. I asked him why he did, and he replied: "I trust the Canadian postal system, the McGill University postal system, and I trust that my secretary would examine any package carefully before she gave it to me." (He was Chair of the Physics Department at this time.) Nothing was ever found. Why then did the FBI place these two physicists on its bomb watch list?

Just before the Bevalac was to be turned off in 1993, I thought that the physics community would be well served if an article were published in *Physics Today* that would summarize what had been learned at the accelerator about dense nuclear matter. I suggested this to Gloria Lubkin, then Editor of *Physics Today*; she agreed and asked me to recommend authors for it. I recommended Westfall, an experimentalist, and Das Gupta, a theorist, both of whom had been involved with the Bevalac since the late 1970s. After they submitted their manuscript, Lubkin asked me to review it.[^8] I strongly supported its publication . They had pretty well pinned down the nuclear equation of state up to about two-to-three times the normal nuclear-matter density, as well as the momentum dependence of the nuclear-optical potential (the energy of a nucleon as a function of its momentum when passing through nuclear matter of a given density). I suggested, however, that they should say something about the motivation to join the SuperHILAC to the Bevatron to form the Bevalac, in particular, something about Lee and Wick's speculation about abnormal nuclear matter. I drafted a paragraph on this and sent it to Lubkin. To my surprise and satisfaction, Das Gupta and Westfall thanked me "for providing the impetus for writing this article," and they incorporated words from my draft paragraph almost unchanged, namely, writing that: "Meetings were held behind closed doors to decide whether or not the proposed experiments should be aborted." "Experiments were eventually performed, and fortunately no such disaster has yet occurred."

The committee that had met behind closed doors included and reported to Bernard Harvey, Associate Director of LBL's Nuclear Science Division; it is dated May 14, 1979, and I provide a transcription of it in the Appendix. The committee thus met about five years after the first experiments with light ions had begun at the Bevelac, but about two years prior to its upgrade to accelerate heavy ions like uranium. Thus, there apparently was little concern that colliding light ions would lead to abnormal nuclear matter, but considerable concern that colliding heavy ions might. In any case, based upon this one-page report the upgrade of the Bevalac was completed and heavy-ion experiments were carried out with it. No one seriously believed that a disaster of the type imagined could ever occur, given that QCD is the relevant theory of the strong interactions and that high-density nuclear matter should not be described as such, but as quark matter. In addition, the committee gave observational arguments for its belief. Nevertheless, this astonishingly brief report was never widely circulated among physicists. Indeed, my request to the LBNL Director's Office for a copy of it was acknowledged conscientiously, but their search came up empty: The LBNL Director's Office has no official record of it.

The FBI thus placed Das Gupta and Westfall on its bomb watch list, because the FBI thought they might be targets of the Unabomber, since they had written about, and apparently had participated in experiments that might have destroyed the human race. With the written permission of Das Gupta and Westfall, I requested information from the FBI records under the Freedom of Information Act concerning this issue. Thankfully, no record of their names were found among any of Kaczynski's papers.

# RHIC, Strangelets, and Black Holes

The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) was built at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) specifically to create quark-gluon plasma, a new state of matter representative of the state of the universe when it was less than one microsecond old and temperatures were greater than two trillion Kelvin. QCD predicts this new state of matter unambiguously because of asymptotic freedom, a key feature of the theory that results in forces becoming weaker and weaker at shorter and shorter distances. Intuitively, quark-gluon plasma is formed when the density of nucleons, pions, and other hadrons observed in high-energy physics experiments becomes so great that they overlap geometrically; the quarks and gluons then do not know to which hadron they belong and therefore are no longer confined to regions of space characteristic of hadronic sizes, about one femtometer ($10^{-15}$ meter). The gas of quasi-free quarks and gluons is called plasma, because these entities carry color charge, a nonabelian version of ordinary electric charge.

Like the Bevalac, RHIC owes its heritage to high-energy particle physics. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the U.S. physics community made plans to construct a machine at BNL to collide counter-rotating beams of protons at energies of 200 GeV per proton in the center-of-momentum frame. It was called the Colliding Beam Accelerator (CBA) or ISABELLE, but was canceled in 1983 for a variety of scientific, technical, and financial reasons . The underground circular tunnel to house the accelerator, however, had already been dug by that time,[^9] so the nuclear-physics community recognized that an opportunity now existed to build RHIC inside the vacant tunnel with the goal of colliding nuclei as massive as gold at energies up to 100 GeV per nucleon per beam. Theorists estimated that this should be sufficient to create quark-gluon plasma with an energy density of about one hundred times that of ordinary nuclear matter for a very brief moment of time. RHIC was accorded the highest priority in the Long Range Plan for Nuclear Science, and the U.S. Department of Energy and Congress approved funding for it. Its construction was completed on budget in 1999 (figure 8).

Just before RHIC was scheduled to get its first beam, an article by Madhursee Mukerjee entitled "A Little Big Bang" appeared in *Scientific American* in March 1999 . Mukerjee described the physics that would be investigated at RHIC. Some of her readers, however, were alarmed by the idea that RHIC would create matter that had not been seen since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Thus, Michael Cogill of Coquitlan, British Columbia, wrote: "I am concerned that physicists are boldly going where it may be unsafe to go... What if they somehow alter the underlying nature of things such that it cannot be restored?" Walter L. Wagner reacted more specifically by e-mail: "My calculations indicate that the Brookhaven collider does not obtain sufficient energies to produce a mini black hole; however, my calculations might be wrong.... Is the Brookhaven collider for certain below the threshold?"

Frank Wilczek of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton replied to Cogill and Wagner. He discounted as "incredible" the scenario that mini black holes would be created at RHIC, but at the same time allowed that "there is a speculative but quite respectable possibility that subatomic chunks of a new stable form of matter called strangelets might be produced.... But strangelets, if they exist at all, are not aggressive, and they will start out very, very, small." I doubt that these words were very comforting to a concerned nonscientist, even though Wilczek added that "here again a doomsday scenario is not plausible."

The *Sunday Times* (London) featured an article about RHIC on July 18, 1999, under the provocative banner: "The final experiment?" It discussed two possible routes to world destruction. One involved the production of mini black holes that would grow by accretion until they ultimately would gobble up the Earth. The other involved the production of strangelets, objects that comprise approximately equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks, as opposed to protons and neutrons, which comprise up and down quarks only. Strange quarks are heavier than up and down quarks, so they normally would not be present in ordinary nuclear matter. At sufficiently high density, however, some up and down quarks might be transformed into strange quarks to lower the Fermi energy, just as having approximately equal numbers of up and down quarks lower the Fermi energy in nuclei, a possibility that Edward Witten and Edward Farhi and Robert Jaffe advanced in 1984 . Now, if strangelets were formed and were stable, they could gobble up the Earth just like the Lee-Wick abnormal nuclear matter or mini black holes could. To make strangelets, there has to be many up, down, and strange quarks in a small region of space. Did these conditions exist at RHIC?

The article in *The Sunday Times* was written by its Senior Editor, Jonathan Leake, under the title, "Big Bang machine could destroy Earth." Leake referred to the first injection of beams into RHIC's circular rings in July 1999 as a "test-firing" – as if RHIC's scientists and engineers were testing a weapon instead of a research accelerator. Leake's article, however, was not inflammatory and did not mention anything that had not been discussed earlier in the *Physical Review* or *Scientific American*. In his concluding paragraph he quoted John Nelson, Professor of Physics at the University of Birmingham, as saying: "The big question is whether the planet will disappear in the twinkling of an eye. It is astonishingly unlikely that there is any risk – but I could not prove it." These words, like Wilczek's reply to Cogill and Wagner, seems to me to be not very comforting to a concerned nonscientist.

There is a postscript to this story. I gave an after-dinner talk on this topic onboard a large boat cruising up and down the blue Danube during the Quark Matter 2005 conference in Budapest, Hungary. I showed a picture of Leake's article and mentioned his quote by John Nelson. I jokingly said that I did not know Nelson, but his comment did not seem to me to be very comforting to a layperson. From far away, near the bow, I heard some commotion and then a loud voice: "I'm John Nelson – and I was misquoted!" A chorus of laughter erupted from bow to stern.

Leake also mentioned in his article that John Marburger III, Director of BNL (and future presidential science advisor), had appointed a committee to investigate whether something "could go disastrously wrong" during the running of RHIC. Its members, Wit Busza, Robert Jaffe, Jack Sandweiss, and Frank Wilczek, adapted and revised their report and published it under the title, "Review of speculative 'disaster scenarios' at RHIC" in the *Reviews of Modern Physics* . The main points they made were as follows:

-   A mini black hole with the energy of two colliding gold nuclei at RHIC would have a Schwarzschild radius of $10^{-34}$ femtometer, whereas the radius of a gold nucleus is 7 femtometers. The probability of a fluctuation that would concentrate all of the energy of two colliding gold nuclei into such a small volume of space occupied by a mini black hole is unimaginably small.

-   An ideal strangelet would have equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks, represented by the symbol (uds)$^{\textstyle A}$ for an object of baryon or atomic number A, making it electrically neutral. The strange quark, however, is heavier than the up and down quarks, implying that a strangelet would be slightly depleted of strange quarks, making it positively charged. It therefore would be repelled by ordinary nuclei, which would inhibit fusion and thus the subsequent conversion into a larger strangelet from ordinary matter.

-   There was a dedicated experiment to search for strangelets at the AGS at BNL using beams of gold nuclei with an energy of 11 GeV per nucleon on fixed targets. This effort, led by Sandweiss, did not find a single strangelet candidate . A corresponding search at the SPS at CERN also failed to find strangelets .

-   There is a component of iron in very high-energy cosmic rays, which have been bombarding the moon for billions of years ... and the moon is still there.

It seemed to me at the time that Marburger was being very cautious and did the right thing in appointing this committee, whose analyses made good reading but were not particularly startling to the physics community.

# Posner's Proposals

Richard A. Posner published his thought-provoking book, *Catastrophe: Risk and Response*, in 2004 , and several reviews of it appeared thereafter, including one by Kenneth R. Foster in *Science* magazine on February 25, 2005, and one by Brian H. Nordstrom in the Newsletter of the Forum on Physics and Society of the American Physical Society in January 2006 . As the title of his book suggests, Posner raises the questions of how much risk of a major catastrophe we are willing to accept to obtain a certain benefit, and what society's response should be to such risks. RHIC figures prominently in his book.

Posner was a distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Chicago from 1969 to 1981, after which he was appointed as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and served as Chief Judge from 1993 to 2000. He has written more than thirty books and has served as editor or as a member of the editorial boards of various legal journals and law reviews. Some of his concerns regarding the possibility that experiments at RHIC might cause the end of the world are as follows:

-   He is concerned that the members of Marburger's RHIC assessment committee (Busza, Jaffe, Sandweiss, Wilczek) were not disinterested parties but had strong motivations to insure that the experiments would be carried out.

-   He cites Italian physicist Francesco Calogero, who suggested in 2000 that BNL should engage two teams, "a 'blue team' trying to make an 'objective' assessment, and a 'red team' (acting as devil's advocates) specifically charged with making a genuine effort at proving that the experiments are indeed dangerous...."

-   He also cites Arnon Dar, Alvaro De Rujula, and Ulrich Heinz, who concluded on the basis of astrophysical considerations that the annual probability that strangelets produced at RHIC will destroy the Earth is less than 1 in 5 million, which compared to other potential disasters may be an unacceptably high probability .

Posner concludes: "Congress should consider enacting a law that would require all scientific research projects in specified areas, such as nanotechnology and experimental high-energy physics, to be reviewed by a *federal catastrophic-risks assessment board and forbidden* if the board found that the project would create an undue risk to human survival \[my italics\]."

Posner's perspective is different from that of most scientists, and is a legitimate one. Take, for example, his first two points above. Marburger's RHIC assessment committee included two experimentalists, Busza from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Sandweiss from Yale University, who to my knowledge have never been involved in the same experimental collaboration. It also included two theorists, Jaffe and Wilczek,[^10] both from MIT, who to my knowledge had never collaborated on any research paper prior to the publication of the committee's report, and on only a few thereafter. A physicist thus would be inclined to conclude that the committee produced a fair and unbiased report on the potential disasters that might afflict RHIC, especially because physicists relish challenging the ideas, calculations, and measurements of their colleagues.

The legal system, however, works differently. One side almost invariably pushes its own point of view while dismissing or trying to demolish the other side's arguments. If the opposition then cannot defend itself or convince a judge or jury, then it loses, even if it was "right." To a layperson or to a member of the legal profession, it thus makes good sense to have two opposing camps present their arguments for and against doing experiments at RHIC. In fact, Dar and his colleagues actually pointed out loopholes in some of the arguments concerning the stability of the universe against nuclear collisions in RHIC, for example the argument of the Marburger committee that the moon has not been destroyed to date by cosmic rays: A strangelet might be produced by the collision of an iron nucleus striking the surface of the moon, but immediately thereafter be fragmented by a collision with another nucleus just beneath the moon's surface, so that the strangelets would be destroyed before they have a chance to grow. In general, therefore, should there not be two sides to this and other arguments, each pushing the limits of scientific knowledge and justifying its choice of uncertain parameters to produce an outcome most favorable to its position?

Posner cites the conclusion of Dar and his colleagues that the annual probability that strangelets produced at RHIC would destroy the Earth is less than 1 in 5 million, which seems like a very small number. Consider, however, the reasoning of those who play the lottery. A powerball jackpot of \$100 million, a ticket price of \$1, and 5 million tickets would be considered "darn good odds," since the average return would be 20 to 1. Who wouldn't play, given these odds? Ignoring the obvious, this example points out the difference in what 1 in 5 million means in these two different contexts. For the lottery, someone is eventually guaranteed to win. For RHIC, there is no guarantee that RHIC would ever destroy the Earth no matter how long it runs. The 1 in 5 million odds here may be interpreted as the maximum likelihood that the laws of Nature are such that strangelets are stable, that at least one would be created at RHIC, and that it would grow uncontrollably to destroy the Earth. The odds are tiny but not zero. A physicist never says never. Is this tiny probability acceptable ... given the potentially devastating consequences?

Posner makes some excellent points regarding the relationship among science, society, and the legal system, as follows:

-   "The modern physical sciences concern phenomena of which ordinary people have no intuitive sense whatsoever, such as cell processes, the carbon cycle, and subatomic forces."

-   "The legal system cannot deal effectively with scientifically and technologically difficult questions unless lawyers and judges – not all, but more than at present – are comfortable with such questions."

Posner's first point is well known to academic scientists, while his second is particularly provocative. To address it he proposes that law schools should set up programs "to assure that a nontrivial number of lawyers were comfortable with scientific methods, attitudes, usages, and vocabulary." His word "nontrivial" is a familiar one to physicists, and his idea is a splendid one, but many law schools may not be prepared to implement it. Further, those few law students who have a background in science or engineering almost always seem to be attracted to patent law or closely related fields in which there is high demand and significant financial reward. Posner, however, is advocating the education of scientifically knowledgeable lawyers who are excited about and willing to enter the judicial system and public service. I regard this as an entirely worthwhile goal that should be pursued by every concerned scientist and lawyer.

# Conclusions

I know of no professional physicist who is truly worried that a nuclear or particle-physics experiment could go so disastrously wrong that it could cause the end of the world. Rather, to me the main lesson is that physicists must learn how to communicate their exciting discoveries to nonscientists honestly and seriously. Perhaps Kenneth R. Foster put it best in his review of Posner's book: "scientists must pay attention to the social as well as to the technical dimensions of technological risk–and develop a better understanding of how nonscientists will interpret their pronouncements on the subject."

I am a theorist who recently became a member of the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experimental collaboration at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC ) at CERN. This collaboration will carry out measurements on collisions of lead nuclei at center-of-momentum energies of 5.5 TeV (tera-electron volts; 1 TeV = $10^{12}$ eV) per nucleon energies. This is greater than 1 PeV (peta-electron volt; 1 PeV = $10^{15}$ eV) total collision energy, which is the highest energy ever achieved in nuclear or particle-physics experiments. We hope and expect that new physics beyond the Standard Model will be found. All that I can safely predict with confidence, however, is that *the story I have related here will be repeated at the LHC!* In fact, a report entitled "Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy Ion Collisions at the LHC" has already been prepared . I do not believe that experiments at the LHC will cause the end of the world ... but I cannot prove it.

# Appendix[^11]

Creation of Super-Dense Neutral Matter in the Bevalac
The possibility that stable super-dense matter can exist in nature, and might be formed during high-energy, heavy-ion collision experiments, was first suggested by Drs. Lee and Wick several years ago. The arguments advanced in support of this possibility were preliminary and inconclusive. In 1974 in a panel discussion of this Lee-Wick matter at a conference at Bear Mountain \[California\] sponsored by the National Science Foundation, someone asked, "If this matter could exist, what if it could also grow?" (i.e., by assimilating, or "gobbling up" surrounding matter.) There was only a brief discussion and no conclusions were reached.

At a symposium at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in November, 1977, Dr. A.S. Goldhaber of Stony Brook mentioned the discussion that had taken place at the Bear Mountain meeting. Dr. Bernard Harvey, Associate Director for LBL's Nuclear Science Division, felt that the subject merited serious consideration. He therefore recruited a select committee to discuss the subject. The committee met on the UC Berkeley campus in January 1978.

After 1$\frac{1}{2}$ days of discussion, the committee unanimously agreed that super-dense, super-stable neutral matter would not be formed in the Bevalac. This conclusion was based on both theoretical considerations and on pragmatic evidence.

Based upon present knowledge and theory, it was concluded that for such matter to be formed and to be capable of growth, it would have to be more stable than any known nuclear matter. In addition it would have to have no charge, i.e., be totally neutral. If it were positively charged, like normal nuclear matter, it would repel other nuclei and so would be unable to grow by combining with them. Even if the required very high densities were achieved, it is very unlikely that the matter would also be stable and neutral.

If such an event could occur in a laboratory, it should also happen in the collision of cosmic rays on bodies in space, such as the moon. The moon and other bodies in space are continually bombarded by particles at energies like those used in the Bevalac, yet, through billions of years, nothing of this kind has happened.

The committee agreed that collisions of heavy ions with nuclei at Bevalac energies should be studied, and that there was no need for special precautions to deal with the remote possibility of the formation of super-stable, neutral matter.

The committee members were:
Professor A. Kerman, MIT
Professor Kinsey Anderson, Director, UCB Space Sciences Laboratory
Professor A.S. Goldhaber, Stony Brook
Dr. Miklos Gyulassy, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Professor T.D. Lee, Columbia University
Professor Luis Alvarez, UCB and LBL, retired
Dr. B.G. Harvey, Associate Director, Nuclear Science Division, LBL

# Acknowledgments

I thank Roger H. Stuewer for encouraging me to write this paper, and for his editorial work on it. My research since I was a graduate student has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy apart from one postdoctoral year by the U.S. National Science Foundation.

School of Physics and Astronomy
University of Minnesota
Church Street SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
This paper was submitted to *Physics in Perspective* in January 2007 and is scheduled to appear in the June 2008 issue.

[^1]: Joseph I. Kapusta received his Ph.D. degree at the University of California at Berkeley in 1978 and has been on the faculty of the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Minnesota since 1982. He is the author of over 150 papers in refereed journals and conference proceedings and of *Finite Temperature Field Theory* (Cambridge University Press, 1989; second edition with Charles Gale, 2006).

[^2]: The name has since changed to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL).

[^3]: For historical reasons, nuclear-physics research has always been done in the Chemistry Department under Nuclear Chemistry and in the Nuclear Science Division at LBL, not in the Physics Department.

[^4]: Lee received the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1957 along with Chen Ning Yang for their discovery of parity nonconservation.

[^5]: It was named the Bevatron, because it could accelerate protons to BeV (billion-electron-volt) energies, although the symbol BeV was later replaced by GeV (giga-electron volt) by international agreement; 1 BeV = 1 GeV = $10^9$ eV.

[^6]: I first saw this photograph in a textbook that I used as a sophomore in college; see Paul A. Tipler, *Foundations of Modern Physics* (New York: Worth Publishers, 1969), p. 49.

[^7]: Bodmer thanks Paul J. Ellis for pointing out the analogy to molecular isomers. Ellis became my friend and collaborator when I joined the Minnesota faculty in 1982; he died suddenly of a heart attack in 2005 as I was preparing an early Powerpoint version of this paper for a talk.

[^8]: I do not know if my review was anonymous or not, but following standard practice my name was not listed in the acknowledgements.

[^9]: The particle-physics community moved on to begin construction of an even bigger machine in Texas, the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). The U.S. Congress canceled this project in 1993 after spending \$2 billion of a projected cost of \$10 billion. See Michael Riordan, "The Demise of the Superconducting Super Collider," *Physics in Perspective* **2** (2000), 411-425. Congress later ordered the partially dug tunnel for the SSC to be filled in to prevent a resurrection of the project at some time in the future.

[^10]: Posner refers to Wilczek, who meanwhile moved from the Institute for Advanced Study to MIT, as an experimentalist in this context for reasons that he gives in his book.

[^11]: I thank Arthur Poskanzer for sending me a copy of this report.


# Abstract

Embryonic stem cells (ESC) have the potential to self-renew indefinitely and to differentiate into any of the three germ layers. The molecular mechanisms for self-renewal, maintenance of pluripotency and lineage specification are poorly understood, but recent results point to a key role for epigenetic mechanisms. In this study, we focus on quantifying the impact of histone 3 acetylation (H3K9,14ac) on gene expression in murine embryonic stem cells. We analyze genome-wide histone acetylation patterns and gene expression profiles measured over the first five days of cell differentiation triggered by silencing Nanog, a key transcription factor in ESC regulation. We explore the temporal and spatial dynamics of histone acetylation data and its correlation with gene expression using supervised and unsupervised statistical models. On a genome-wide scale, changes in acetylation are significantly correlated to changes in mRNA expression and, surprisingly, this coherence increases over time. We quantify the predictive power of histone acetylation for gene expression changes in a balanced cross-validation procedure. In an in-depth study we focus on genes central to the regulatory network of Mouse ESC, including those identified in a recent genome-wide RNAi screen and in the PluriNet, a computationally derived stem cell signature. We find that compared to the rest of the genome, ESC-specific genes show significantly more acetylation signal and a much stronger decrease in acetylation over time, which is often not reflected in an concordant expression change. These results shed light on the complexity of the relationship between histone acetylation and gene expression and are a step forward to dissect the multilayer regulatory mechanisms that determine stem cell fate.

# Author Summary

Stem cell differentiation and the maintenance of self-renewal are intrinsically complex processes that require coordinated regulation on many different cellular levels. Here we focus on the relationship between two important layers and follow it over the first five days of differentiation. The first layer – measured by acetylation of one of the histone proteins – describes which parts of the DNA are tightly wrapped up and which lie open. The second layer describes the activity of genes measured by their mRNA expression. Using a wide array of statistical approaches we show that changes in histone acetylation are very predictive for gene expression and that the concordance between the two levels increases over time. Concentrating on genes central to the regulatory networks in embryonic stem cells we find that key genes show very high acetylation signal in the beginning that decreases quickly over time, indicating that they lie in initially open regions that are rapidly closing down. These results are a step forward to a better understanding of the complexities of the relationship between histone acetylation and gene expression, which will help to dissect the multilayer regulatory mechanisms that determine stem cell fate.

# Introduction

Embryonic stem cells (ESC) are pluripotent cells that have the potential to self-renew indefinitely and to differentiate into any of the three germ layers. Molecular regulation of embryonic stem cell fate is implemented by a coordinated interaction between epigenetic , transcriptional and translational mechanisms.

The molecular mechanisms for self-renewal, maintenance of pluripotency and lineage specification are poorly understood , but recent results point to key roles for a network of transcription factors and a wide range of epigenetic mechanisms . For example, recent work showed the importance of chromatin remodeling factors like polycomb proteins and the SWI/SNF complex for ES cell regulation. ES cells are richer in less compact euchromatin and, as differentiation progresses, accumulate highly condensed, transcriptionaly inactive heterochromatin regions . Major architectural chromatin proteins are hyper-dynamic and bind loosely to chromatin in ES cells. Upon differentiation, the hyperdynamic proteins become immobilized on chromatin . Bivalent domains – consisting of large regions of H3 lysine 27 methylation harboring smaller regions of H3 lysine 4 methylation– silence developmental genes in ES cells while keeping them poised for action .

#### Multi-layered time-course data in Nanog-depleted mouse ESC

The number of data sets in ESC linking epigenetic mechanisms to other molecular regulatory mechanisms and following that relationship over time is very limited. Recently, however, Lu and coworkers presented a dynamic systems-level study to assess how different molecular regulatory mechanisms interact in stem cell fate decisions in mouse ESC. Lu *et al* initiated cell differentiation by experimentally down-regulating Nanog, a key pluripotency regulator. Over the following five days they measured changes on four different molecular levels: histone acetylation (H3K9,14ac), chromatin-bound RNA polymerase II, messenger RNA (mRNA) expression and nuclear protein abundance. This data set provides a rich resource to untangle the complexity of the multi-layer regulatory mechanism responsible for stem cell fate. Lu *et al* anchored their analyses on changes in nuclear protein expression and found that many lacked concordant changes in mRNA expression, pointing to important roles for translational and post-translational regulation of ESC fate. Here, we complement theses analyses with an in-depth study of the relation between histone acetylation and gene expression in the same data set.

#### Histone acetylation and gene expression

The acetylation of lysine residues is among the best characterized histone modifications. It has long been correlated with transcriptional activation . This observation has been verified in many recent high-throughput studies . For example, histone acetylation was found to be positively correlated with expression in yeast and human T cells . The last study also suggests that acetylation sites often cluster together in so called 'acetylation islands' .

Several models have been suggested to explain how histone acetylation and other modifications regulate gene expression , including charge neutralization and a signalling pathway model . However, the detailed mechanism is still poorly understood. This problem is highlighted by two recent studies, one experimental and one statistical. Günther *et al.* stress the importance of additional regulatory events by showing that acetylated and methylated nucleosomes, as well as RNA polymerase II, occupy the promoters of most protein-coding genes in human ES cells, even those that are not expressed. Yuan *et al.* assessed the global regulatory role of histone acetylation in *Saccharomyces cerevisiae* by controlling for confounding effects like transcription factor binding sites and nucleosome occupancy. They find a clear effect of histone 3 acetylation, but no significant direct impact of histone 4 acetylation or combinatorial effects, even though they correlate with expression.

These results indicate that further experimental results and statistical analyses are required to untangle the regulatory role of histone acetylation and the mechanism by which it acts. The need for a better understanding of histone acetylation is especially urgent in ES cells, where many key regulatory mechanisms are epigenetic and act by chromatin modifications and remodeling. For example, embryonic stem cells in which histone de-acetylation is inhibited, undergo morphological and gene expression changes indicative of differentiation .

#### Overview of results

In the following, we first start by analyzing the internal structure of the histone acetylation profiles and their change during differentiation. We investigate the dynamics of acetylation over time and find that the location of acetylation islands remain stable. We find that differentially down-regulated genes are accompanied by a much stronger loss of acetylation than up-regulated genes are by a gain of acetylation. In a next step we assess the dynamics of the correlation between mean acetylation levels and expression and find that coordination increases over time. Using statistical classification methods we then quantify the predictive power of acetylation profiles for gene expression changes. Finally, we focus on genes playing key roles in the regulatory networks governing fate decisions in embryonic stem cells. We show that these genes show highly increased acetylation profiles. Over time the high levels of acetylation get reduced more strongly than in other, not ESC specific genes. This behaviour is far less pronounced in the gene expression data, pointing to a key role in non-transcriptional regulation of pluripotency for important ESC genes.

# Results

Our central questions are how changes in gene expression are reflected in histone acetylation, how predictive histone acetylation is for gene expression changes, and how this relationship changes over time. To answer them, in the following we employ different statistical approaches to describe the internal structure of histone acetylation profiles and to map them to changes in gene expression.

## Histone acetylation changes in differentially expressed genes

### Location of acetylation islands is stable over time

As examples of the data we work with, Figure 1A shows acetylation profiles of Pou5f1/Oct4 and Klf4. The plots show acetylation levels at four time points: before silencing Nanog (day 0) and at days 1, 3, and 5 afterwards. The plots show large internal variation of acetylation signal for each gene. As a first preparatory step in our analysis we investigated if there is evidence that the location of acetylation signal changes over time. If the signal location does not change, then only the quantitative level of acetylation are important when mapping it to gene expression in the next steps of our study.

We identified acetylation islands by comparing probe signal to background distribution of control probes on the array (see *Material and Methods*). Figure 1A depicts the background distribution as a grey area, all probes above it are counted as 'acetylated', all probes inside as 'unacetylated'. (This is a slight abuse of terminology since technically it is not the probe that is acetylated but the histone protein bound to a piece of DNA complementary to the probe.) With these results, we investigated dynamical changes on the probe level and asked for each gene: Are the same probes acetylated over time, or does the position of acetylation signal change over time? To answer this question, we represented each gene by two numbers: the percentage of probes staying un-acetylated and the percentage of probes staying acetylated between time-points. Figure 1B shows that the distribution of these values is concentrated in the upper right corner of the plot which corresponds to perfect conservation of acetylation location over time. Probes that are acetylated at any time-point stay acetylated and un-acetylated probes stay un-acetylated. In a second step we investigated if regions of peak signal in the binned profiles change over time. We defined a peak as those bins that include the maximum of the profile and together carry $\geq30\%$ of the signal. Figure 1C shows that not only acetylated probes but also peaks stay stable over time.

Thus, in summary, in our data we find no evidence that the location of acetylation signal changes over time. This simple analysis plays only a preparatory role in our study: it allows us to focus on quantitative changes in signal intensity in the next steps of our analysis. The data we work with from now is exemplified by the blue heatmaps underneath the profiles in Figure 1A. For each gene, our data captures the quantitative acetylation signal in a region of $\pm3.5$kb around the transcription start site (TSS).

### Loss of acetylation is more pronounced than gain of acetylation

We find clear correlations between histone acetylation and gene expression. For example, Figure 2A shows all genes differentially expressed on day 5. In this plot, genes transcriptionally up-regulated also show increased levels of acetylation, while down-regulated genes show a decrease.

However, these plots also indicate that the loss of acetylation for down-regulated genes is much stronger pronounced than the gain of acetylation for up-regulated genes. This is particularly visible in Figure 2B, which plots the acetylation distributions separately for up-regulated, down-regulated and stable genes. The down-regulated genes show a very strong loss over the whole width of the profile, while the up-regulated genes show a much weaker signal and only close to the TSS. Genes without significant expression changes show a strong bias towards loss of acetylation, but the size of the effect is much smaller than in the down-regulated genes.

### Partial correlation analysis resolves spatial and temporal dependencies in acetylation profiles

We were interested in the internal correlation structure of the histone acetylation profiles and used partial correlation analysis (see *Material and Methods*) to measure the direct relations between regions around TSS (i.e. the bins in the profile). Figure 3A shows partial correlation matrices combining data from day 1, 3 and 5. We computed one matrix for genes differentially expressed on day 5 and a second one for genes with stable expression. Both matrices show a strong stripe-pattern indicating high correlation for neighboring bins and for the same bin at different days. The differences between the two matrices are minimal, as can be seen in the right-most matrix of Figure 3A. Only between day 3 and 5 do the acetylation profiles in differential genes show a little bit more correlation than those in the non-differential genes.

The significant entries of the partial correlation matrix can be depicted by the graph structure shown in Figure 3B. The three layers of the graph correspond to the three days and each edge indicates a significant partial correlation coefficient. We show the graph for the non-differential genes since their larger number results in higher power. The graph shows that the spatial and temporal dependencies between variables very clearly show in the correlation structure of the data, for example almost all neighboring bins at the same time-point are connected. However, close to the TSS the graph is much less connected than in more distant regions. This possible reflects the presence of nucleosome free regions around the TSS in many active genes .

## Coordination of histone acetylation and gene expression increases over time

We assessed the correlation between histone acetylation changes and gene expression changes versus day 0 for all pairings of days. This analysis is anchored on the ESC state (day 0) and assesses the coordination of *cumulative* changes away from it. In a first step, we summarized each acetylation profile by the mean and computed the standard Pearson correlation between the resulting acetylation vector and expression vector (Figure 4A, left matrix). The results show that changes in acetylation demonstrate significant correlation to changes in mRNA expression. Correlations with acetylation changes on day 1 are generally small (in general $<0.1$), but correlations between changes on days 3 and 5 show very significant values, e.g. on day 5 Pearson correlation is 0.344. Even though this value is small, the level of coherence is very surprising given the large number of genes ($>17\ 000$). The correlation table shows coherence between histone acetylation and gene expression increases over time and is biggest on day 5.

### Correlation results are statistically significant

We assessed the significance of observed correlations in two ways. First, we used the analytic Null-distributions known for the correlation measures we used . Significance is a function of sample size and with $>17\ 000$ genes we find all correlations between days 3 and 5 to be significant with $p$-values smaller than $10^{-100}$. Correlations with day 1 (first row or column in Figure 4A left matrix) are much weaker, but still almost always significant on a level of $10^{-4}$. One reason for these extremely small $p$-values is that the analytic Null-distributions assume independence between genes, which is an unreasonable assumption for genomic data. To correct for this bias, we used a permutation approach that keeps the correlation structure of genes intact for a second assessment of significance. We compared the correlations measured in the actual data with the distribution of $10^4$ correlation values computed on permuted versions of the data. However, qualitatively the results were identical to the first approach: correlations between days 3 and 5 are very significant (no permutation yielded a correlation exceeding the value on the actual data) and correlations to day 1 are much weaker.

### Correlation results are robust to gene selection and correlation measures

In the next step we assessed the robustness of the observed correlation pattern by using different types of correlation measures, different ways to average the acetylation changes and different subsets of the data (right matrix of Figure 4A). In particular, we used the Spearman rank correlation between the *median* (instead of *mean*) acetylation change and expression, as well as the correlations computed by Canonical Correlation Analysis, a statistical method to find directions of maximal correlation between datasets (see *Materials and Methods*). For each of these different ways to compute correlations, we asked whether the results are global or driven by a small subset of genes, e.g. the differentially expressed genes. Figure 4A summarizes our finding that the pattern of increased correlation over time was preserved for all subsets of genes and definitions of correlation. This indicates that our results are reproducible and describe a global event not limited to a specific subset of genes or a particular correlation estimate.

## Acetylation changes are highly predictive for gene expression changes

Correlation analysis showed global coherence between *averaged* acetylation profiles and gene expression. Next, we analyzed the predictive power of the *complete* profile using a wide array of statistical classification methods. We investigate the predictive power of histone acetylation for gene expression by asking: Can changes in histone acetylation patterns project changes in gene expression? If acetylation is a marker for open chromatin, does it predict expression change in general, and how well can it distinguish up- from down-regulation?

### Setup of classification analysis

To address these questions we applied a comprehensive collection of classification methods in an unbiased repeated 10-fold cross-validation study (see *Material and Methods*) to four different classification problems: (i) Distinguishing transcriptionally up- from down-regulated genes, (ii) distinguishing down-regulated genes from un-responsive genes, (iii) distinguishing up-regulated genes from un-responsive genes, or (iv) distinguishing differential genes (up or down) from un-responsive genes. On each of these four problems we used (a.) Support Vector Machines with different kernel functions; (b.) versions of Gaussian discriminant analysis; (c.) several classification tree methods; (d.) $k$-nearest neighbor classification with varying numbers of neighbors; as well as (e.) naive Bayes classification, neural networks and logistic regression (see *Material and Methods*).

Different classifiers may respond to different signal in the data. For example, naive Bayes classifiers assume independence of features (here: the bins in the acetylation profiles), while SVM and other non-linear classifiers can make use of interactions between features. Our selection of classification methods offers a comprehensive overview of current state-of-the-art methodology and makes our results independent of an arbitrary choice of some particular classification method.

### Results of classification analysis

Figure 4B shows the results of the cross validation study. In all problems all classifiers clearly beat the baseline of 50% accuracy, but there are obvious differences in performance: Distinguishing up- from down-regulated genes is the easiest problem with performances reaching 80% and above. This margin of improvement over baseline is quite large given that predicting expression from sequence information is a notoriously hard problem (see the discussion of in ) and that the acetylation marks we are using ranked far behind others in predictive power for expression in a recent comparison .

The other three classification problems are harder, especially for distinguishing differential from unresponsive genes classifier performances only reach a level of around 60% accuracy. This can be explained by the set of differential genes containing two opposing signals, which makes it hard to clearly separate it.

The other two curves in Figure 4B show that down-regulated genes can be better distinguished from un-responsive genes than up-regulated genes can. This might be surprising since we saw in Figure 2B that the acetylation profile distributions for down-regulated genes overlapped more with the un-responsive genes than the profiles for up-regulated genes did. However, it can be explained by the fact that loss of acetylation affects wider regions than gain of acetylation signal as can be seen in Figure 2B.

For all classification problems, more highly regularized and constrained methods beat less regularized ones; for example, a larger number of neighbors improves k-nearest neighbor classification, quadratic Gaussian discriminant analysis performs worse than the three linear versions, and the higher degree polynomial SVMs are in most cases out-performed by the linear SVM.

## ESC genes show very strong acetylation changes, which are not all reflected in gene expression

Our results so far investigated the general relationship between histone acetylation and gene expression. Now we focus on sets of genes central to the regulatory network governing ES cell state. We will call them *ESC genes* for short. We used several freely available data sources, which complement each other in describing ESC from different perspectives including transcriptional, proteomic and functional. In particular, we used five different descriptions of key ESC genes given by (1) the PluriNet , a computationally derived stem cell signature; (2) hits of a recent RNAi screen for self-renewal ; (3) gene ontology term GO:0019827 'stem cell maintenance'; (4) members of an ESC-specific protein-interaction network ; (5) key transcriptional regulators of ESC .

### Average histone acetylation signal is very high in ESC genes

The left panel in Figure 5A plots the sorted mean acetylation signal on day 0, before Nanog-silencing triggers differentiation, and underneath the ranks where the five ESC gene lists fall in this ordering. In all five gene lists we observe a strong trend for ESC genes to have a very high average acetylation signal, i.e. the bars representing the gene sets all cluster on the right-hand side of the plot. The trends are strong and easily visible by eye; we quantify their significance by Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA , see *Materials and Methods*) and observe $p$-values $\leq10^{-4}$ for four gene sets and $p < 10^{-3}$ for the fifth one.

### Decrease in histone acetylation signal is not accompanied by similarly strong decrease in gene expression

Over time the acetylation signal generally diminishes, but this trend is especially pronounced in ESC genes (Figure 5A, middle panel). All five gene sets have $p$-values $\leq10^{-2}$ and three of them even $\leq10^{-4}$. This shows that compared to all other genes, ESC genes are predominantly affected by de-acetylation during the first days of differentiation. If we take histone acetylation as a marker of open chromatin, this result could indicate that the chromatin regions, at which the ESC genes are located, are closing down over time.

We were then interested in seeing how this strong de-acetylation is reflected in gene expression (right-most panel in Figure 5A). Qualitatively, the correlation results of Fig. 4A also hold for the sets of ESC genes. However, when comparing expression changes in ESC genes to other genes, we only found a strong trend to negative expression changes in the set of transcriptional regulators ($p\leq10^{-4}$) but only much less in the other gene sets. Members of the protein interaction network show moderate down-regulation, but in particular the PluriNet genes and the RNAi hits are uniformly spread out over the spectrum. One way to interpret this observation are other major regulatory influences on key ESC genes that can not be explained by accumulation of condensed and transcriptionally inactive heterochromatin regions (as far as these are indicted by histone de-acetylation).

### ESC genes show overall very strong histone acetylation profiles

The high acetylation signal of ESC genes is not only found in the mean value, but over the whole profile. Figure 5B compares the distribution of acetylation signal between ESC genes and all other genes for each bin individually. Quantiles for the global acetylation distribution across all genes are shown in blue and white boxplots represent the distributions for the union of ESC gene sets described above. Because of their important regulatory function, the set of transcriptional regulators are additionally highlighted in red. We see a significant upwards shift for ESC genes in over the whole range of the profile. This shift is especially pronounced for stem cell transcriptional regulators directly before the TSS.

# Discussion

In this paper we have addressed several questions central to an understanding of the relationship between histone acetylation and gene expression. Using a wide array of methods we have investigated how changes in gene expression are reflected in histone acetylation, how predictive histone acetylation is for gene expression changes, and how this relationship changes over time. In the following we will give a short discussion of our main results.

#### Gain and loss of acetylation over time

While there are less genes transcriptionally down-regulated than up-regulated (Fig. 2A) we find that the accompanying de-acetylation events are much more pronounced than the acetylation events. The wider impact of de-acetylation could be seen in the heatmap (Fig 2A) and the distribution plots (Fig 2B). Its effects could be seen in the results of correlation analysis (Fig 3) and classification analysis (Fig 4).

While Roh *et al* observe main changes in a region of $\pm1$kb around TSS, we observe wider changes especially for down-regulated genes. In particular for ESC genes we find strong acetylation changes over time (Fig 5A) and for several transcriptional regulators we see that acetylation is extremely high before TSS (Fig 5B). These differences in acetylation signal could point to mechanistic differences in how acetyatlion acts and which transcriptional co-factors it recruits in activated and repressed genes.

#### Predictive power of acetylation changes for gene expression changes

We have seen from the classification results (Figure 4B) that histone acetylation changes are highly predictive of gene expression changes. We have also found that the coordination between histone acetylation measurements and gene expression increases over time. This pattern is stable to varying correlation measures and selecting subsets of genes (Figure 4A).

One way to interpret this trend is a time-lag before changes in chromatin structure (as far as these are indicated by histone acetylation) result in coordinated changes in gene expression. In this scenario, chromatin changes induce gene expression changes, which only become visible at a later time-point and thus increase correlation over time. However, the time-delay in our case would span several days and it is not clear which mechanism causes it, since (de-)acetylation dynamics –at least in yeast– are known to work in the order of minutes . Another question we can not answer from predictive models alone is whether chromatin structure changes are *causative* for gene expression changes or whether it is the other way round: chromatin changes could be induced by expression changes and activation of chromatin modelling proteins.

#### Distinct acetylation patterns in key ESC genes

It is known that ES cells in general are rich in less compact euchromatin and high histone acetylation levels are one of the indicators for these open chromatin regions. Thus, the strong acetylation signal of ESC genes we observed could indicate that they are located at open chromatin and thus easily accessible to transcription factors. Our results show that ESC genes are enriched for strong de-aceylation (Figure 5A; middle panel). This observation could point to the fact that in early development, as soon as the cell commits to a certain lineage, ESC are located in genomic regions that are de-acetylated and compacted much faster than other regions of the genome. Our interpretation depends on how close the link between histone acetylation and chromatin structure actually is. Not all chromatin changes will be reflected in histone acetylation and in future work it will be important to also probe other markers of chromatin organization, like *e.g.* histone methylation, in ESC over time. Integrated analyses of different markers will give a much richer picture of epi-genetic gene regulation than any individual marker can .

The stability of acetylation islands we observe and the strong de-acetylation over time agree with a *global accessibility model* of lineage commitment in which ES cells are subject to global active histone modifications that get lost in a lineage-specific way during differentiation. In contrast, our observations do not agree with a *localised marking model* in which short regions of accessible chromatin are expanded during development. This expansion would be visible as location changes in acetylation islands which we did not observe. However, the situation could change if the time-course was repeated using ChIP-seq instead of ChIP-chip technology which offers a higher resolution of acetylation changes.

Our results have two important implications: First, the pattern in Figure 5A shows that the expressions of some of the key ESC genes, especially PluriNet and the RNAi hits, are not regulated completely by chromatin accessibility (as far as it is visible in histone acetylation patterns). Second, the uniform distribution of gene expression changes in many ESC genes shows that they do not regulate pluripotency on a transcriptional level.

The differences in behaviour we see between transcriptional regulators on the one hand and the PluriNet genes and RNAi hits on the other hand could possibly be attributed to differences in how specific these genes actually are for ES cells. The transcriptional regulators are all well-known and very specific, while the computational and functional predictions from PluriNet or RNAi screens can also capture many non-specific genes. For example, the MATISSE algorithm used to derive the PluriNet signature uses protein-interactions and gene expression to find genes connected to key ESC markers. The genes 'pulled in' by the algorithm can help to better understand the mechanisms behind the known marker genes, without being specific regulators themselves. Similar considerations hold for RNAi screens. Many genes contributing to basic cellular functions can potentially be found to be essential for self-renewal, without being stem-cell specific.

#### In summary

Our results are a step forward to a better understanding of the complexities of the relationship between histone acetylation and gene expression, which will help to dissect the multilayer regulatory mechanisms that determine stem cell fate. The data of Lu *et al* is an example of a very rich and complex dynamic phenotype of a single-gene perturbation. Future work will need to integrate this data with similar phenotypes of other genes and then use statistical methods to uncover the cellular networks underlying the observed phenotypes.

# Material and Methods

#### Software

The complete analysis was performed in the statistical computing language R using packages available from the Bioconductor website at `http://www.bioconductor.org` . In addition to the basic distribution we mainly used the packages `limma` , `GeneNet` , `CCA` , `MLInterfaces` , and all packages implied by these. All code is available from the first author upon request.

#### Data preprocessing

Data generation, pre-processing and mapping of genes between datasets is done in exactly the same way as in . Per day we use for each gene the average of three replicates of gene expression measurements and the average of two replicates of H3K9,14ac ChIP-chip. We apply simple quality filters to the histone acetylation data: 19, 413 genes are represented by probes on the chip. For each gene, the probes are concentrated in a $\pm3.5$ kb region around transcription start. Out of the 19, 413 genes, we select the 17,268 that have more than 10 probes within 3.5kb of transcription start. On average, we find $\sim30$ probes per gene, which typically have a distance of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}248 bases pairs. For all of these genes the data set also contains gene expression measurements.

#### Identification of acetylation islands

To find acetylation islands , we compared the measurement for each probe against the distribution of measurements of the control probes on the array. The control probes are designed to be un-acetylated and thus constitute a negative control. Comparing the probe values against the Null distribution yields a $p$-value for every probe. We use an FDR cutoff of $\alpha=0.1$ on the $p$-value distribution to decide which probes to call acetylated and which not.

#### Frequency of acetylation changes

We computed for each gene the conditional distribution of probe acetylation states given the previous time-point. The distribution table can be represented by two numbers: the percentage $\alpha$ of probes staying un-acetylated and the percentage $\beta$ of probes staying acetylated. In this way, each gene can be mapped to a point in $[0,
100] \times [0, 100]$. Genes with too few ($\leq 3$) acetylated or un-acetylated probes (=3510 genes) were discarded because their estimates would be unstable. Results for the remaining 13758 genes are shown in Figure 2A. Plotted are the frequencies computed by assuming that the change distribution is the same for all time points; results don't change qualitatively if we compute individual changes between days (see inlay in Figure 2A for genes differential on day 5).

#### Step-wise linear approximation of acetylation profiles

Genes are represented by different number of probes with varying distances between each other and to the transcription start site. To make acetylation profiles comparable between genes we map them onto vectors of equal length by averaging all probes in equi-distant bins around transcription start. We chose a binning of $0.5$kb, thus covering the $\pm3.5$kb region with 14 bins and mapping each acetylation profile into $R^{14}$. We only considered the signal above background, bins with no probes above background were set to zero. Examples of raw and binned profiles can be seen in Fig. 1A. This binning and averaging makes the data comparable between genes, while preserving most of the quantitative variation in the data.

#### Partial-correlation analysis

To delineate the correlation structure of the data we used partial correlation analysis, also called a Gaussian graphical model . In contrast to regular correlation, *partial* correlation corrects for the influence of all other variables in the model: Vanishing partial correlation (under a Gaussian assumption) means that two variables are independent given all other variables (genomic regions in our case). Thus, partial correlation coefficients measure the direct relationship between two variables, while regular correlation coefficients also measure indirect effects. We used a shrinkage approach for robust estimation of partial correlations. The results can be depicted in a graph, where each node corresponds to a variable (a genomic region) and each edge a partial correlation that is different from zero. Missing edges indicate vanishing partial correlation and thus conditional independence. We select the network containing only edges with probability $> 0.9$ corresponding to a local FDR cutoff of $0.1$ .

#### Canonical correlation analysis

Canonical correlation analysis (CCA, see ) is a way of measuring the linear relationship between two multidimensional variables. In general, CCA finds vectors $a$ and $b$ such that the random variables $a'X$ and $b'Y$ maximize the correlation $\rho = \text{cor}(a' X, b' Y)$. Vectors $a$ and $b$ are unique up to scalar multiplication. The random variables $U = a'X$ and $V = b'Y$ are the first pair of canonical variables and $\rho$ is called the canonical correlation. In our application $X$ corresponds to the histone acetylation data (a 14 dimensional random variable) and $Y$ to the RNA data per day (a one dimensional random variable). Thus, we only need to find vector $a$ to maximize the correlation between the two data sets. Computing the correlation between mean acetylation profiles and expression is closely related to CCA, since it corresponds to the choice of $a_{\text{mean}}=\frac{1}{14}(1,\ldots,1)$, but it is not guaranteed to find the maximal correlation.

#### Classification methods

(a.) Support Vector Machines (SVM, ) construct the hyperplane with maximal margin of separating between the positive and negative training examples. Using non-linear distance measures, so-called kernel functions, this approach can be extended to non-linear classification. We use a linear kernel, a radial basis function kernel and polynomial kernels of degrees 2 and 3. (b.) Gaussian Discriminant Analysis assumes that the positive and negative examples follow a multivariate normal distribution. Versions of Discriminant Analysis differ by the constraints they put on the covariance matrices: no constraints (Quadratic DA); or the same covariance matrix for both classes (Linear DA); or the same *diagonal* covariance matrix (Diagonal Linear DA). Stabilized Linear DA is linear discriminant analysis based on left-spherically distributed linear scores. (c.) Classification trees recursively partition the dataset by splitting along most-informative single features. Bagging (short for 'bootstrap aggregating') aggregates many classification trees built on resampled versions of the training data. Similar to bagging, a Random Forest is an aggregation of many classification trees built on resampled versions of the data and on a randomly chosen subset of features. (d.) $k$-nearest neighbors predicts a gene into the class represented by the majority of the $k$ genes closest to it. We use $k$=1, 5, 10, and 15. (e.) Naive Bayes classification assumes independence of features (hence *naive*) and classifies according to the class posterior probability. The neural network is a single-hidden-layer network. Logistic Regression combines a linear model of the data together with a logistic function to model class probabilities. All classifiers were used via the R-package `MLInterfaces` and with the default parameters defined there.

#### Balanced evaluation of prediction accuracy

The datasets we use for classification can be very unbalanced, for example only $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}5% of all genes show a significant expression change. Thus, the baseline for classification is already at 95% accuracy (when we predict all genes as 'unchanged'). To be able to compare between methods and different classification scenarios, we resorted to a random sampling strategy: We sampled from the larger part of the training set 20 times sets of the size of the smaller part. This created 20 instances of balanced training sets with a baseline of 50%. On each training set we computed the 10-fold cross-validation (CV) accuracy. The variance we see in the CV results is thus a sum of the variance introduced by sampling the training set and the variance from randomly splitting the data into 10 subsets inside CV procedure. It is reassuring that Fig 4B overall shows very consistent results, only individual boxplots are spread out widely.

#### Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA)

The goal of GSEA is to determine whether members of a gene set (for example ES genes) tend to occur toward the top (or bottom) of a list of phenotypes (in our case: mean acetylation or expression). GSEA is especially suited to find coherent changes in a group of genes, even if the individual changes are small. GSEA calculates an enrichment score for a given gene set using rank of genes and infers statistical significance of each ES against ES background distribution calculated by permutation of the original data set. We report the empirical $p$-value after $2\cdot10^4$ permutations, *i.e.* in how many permutations did we observe a result more extreme than the one on real data. We did no multiple-testing correction, since with only 15 tests altogether even the most conservative correction ($p' = 15 \cdot p$) would not qualitatively change our results.

# Acknowledgments

# Figures and legends