How a disordered linker in the Polycomb protein Polyhomeotic tunes phase separation and oligomerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomolecular condensates are increasingly appreciated for their function in organizing and regulating biochemical processes in cells, including chromatin function. Condensate formation and properties are encoded in protein sequence but the mechanisms linking sequence to macroscale properties are incompletely understood. Cross species comparisons can reveal mechanisms either because they identify conserved functions or because they point to important differences. Here we use in vitro reconstitution and molecular dynamics simulations to compare Drosophila and human sequences that regulate condensate formation driven by the sterile alpha motif (SAM) oligomerization domain in the Polyhomeotic (Ph) subunit of the chromatin regulatory complex PRC1. We discover evolutionarily diverged contacts between the conserved SAM and the disordered linker that connects it to the rest of Ph. Linker-SAM interactions increase oligomerization and regulate formation and properties of reconstituted condensates. Oligomerization affects condensate dynamics but, in most cases, has little effect on their formation. Linker-SAM interactions also affect condensate formation in Drosophila and human cells, and growth in Drosophila imaginal discs. Our data show how evolutionary sequence changes in linkers connecting conserved structured domains can alter condensate properties.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".