Comparative roles of charge, <i>π</i> , and hydrophobic interactions in sequence-dependent phase separation of intrinsically disordered proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endeavoring toward a transferable, predictive coarse-grained explicit-chain model for biomolecular condensates underlain by liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) of proteins, we conducted multiple-chain simulations of the N-terminal intrinsically disordered region (IDR) of DEAD-box helicase Ddx4, as a test case, to assess roles of electrostatic, hydrophobic, cation-π, and aromatic interactions in amino acid sequence-dependent LLPS. We evaluated three different residue-residue interaction schemes with a shared electrostatic potential. Neither a common hydrophobicity scheme nor one augmented with arginine/lysine-aromatic cation-π interactions consistently accounted for available experimental LLPS data on the wild-type, a charge-scrambled, a phenylalanine-to-alanine (FtoA), and an arginine-to-lysine (RtoK) mutant of Ddx4 IDR. In contrast, interactions based on contact statistics among folded globular protein structures reproduce the overall experimental trend, including that the RtoK mutant has a much diminished LLPS propensity. Consistency between simulation and experiment was also found for RtoK mutants of P-granule protein LAF-1, underscoring that, to a degree, important LLPS-driving π-related interactions are embodied in classical statistical potentials. Further elucidation is necessary, however, especially of phenylalanine's role in condensate assembly because experiments on FtoA and tyrosine-to-phenylalanine mutants suggest that LLPS-driving phenylalanine interactions are significantly weaker than posited by common statistical potentials. Protein-protein electrostatic interactions are modulated by relative permittivity, which in general depends on aqueous protein concentration. Analytical theory suggests that this dependence entails enhanced interprotein interactions in the condensed phase but more favorable protein-solvent interactions in the dilute phase. The opposing trends lead to only a modest overall impact on LLPS.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".