Charge pattern matching as a ‘fuzzy’ mode of molecular recognition for the functional phase separations of intrinsically disordered proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biologically functional liquid–liquid phase separation of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) is driven by interactions encoded by their amino acid sequences. Little is currently known about the molecular recognition mechanisms for distributing different IDP sequences into various cellular membraneless compartments. Pertinent physics was addressed recently by applying random-phase-approximation (RPA) polymer theory to electrostatics, which is a major energetic component governing IDP phase properties. RPA accounts for charge patterns and thus has advantages over Flory–Huggins (FH) and Overbeek–Voorn mean-field theories. To make progress toward deciphering the phase behaviors of multiple IDP sequences, the RPA formulation for one IDP species plus solvent is hereby extended to treat polyampholyte solutions containing two IDP species plus solvent. The new formulation generally allows for binary coexistence of two phases, each containing a different set of volume fractions for the two different IDP sequences. The asymmetry between the two predicted coexisting phases with regard to their ratios for the two sequences increases with increasing mismatch between their charge patterns. This finding points to a multivalent, stochastic, 'fuzzy' mode of molecular recognition that helps populate various IDP sequences differentially into separate phase compartments. An intuitive illustration of this trend is provided by FH models, whereby a hypothetical case of ternary coexistence is also explored. Augmentations of the present RPA theory with a relative permittivity that depends on IDP volume fraction lead to higher propensities to phase separate, in line with the case with one IDP species we studied previously. Notably, the cooperative, phase-separation-enhancing effects predicted by the prescriptions for we deem physically plausible are much more prominent than that entailed by common effective medium approximations based on Maxwell Garnett and Bruggeman mixing formulas. Ramifications of our findings on further theoretical development for IDP phase separation are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".