Measurement of solubility product reveals the interplay of oligomerization and self-association for defining condensate formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellular condensates often consist of 10s to 100s of distinct interacting molecular species. Because of the complexity of these interactions, predicting the point at which they will undergo phase separation is daunting. Using experiments and computation, we therefore studied a simple model system consisting of polySH3 and polyPRM designed for pentavalent heterotypic binding. We tested whether the peak solubility product, or the product of the dilute phase concentration of each component, is a predictive parameter for the onset of phase separation. Titrating up equal total concentrations of each component showed that the maximum solubility product does approximately coincide with the threshold for phase separation in both experiments and models. However, we found that measurements of dilute phase concentration include small oligomers and monomers; therefore, a quantitative comparison of the experiments and models required inclusion of small oligomers in the model analysis. Even with the inclusion of small polyPRM and polySH3 oligomers, models did not predict experimental results. This led us to perform dynamic light scattering experiments, which revealed homotypic binding of polyPRM. Addition of this interaction to our model recapitulated the experimentally observed asymmetry. Thus, comparing experiments with simulation reveals that the solubility product can be predictive of the interactions underlying phase separation, even if small oligomers and low affinity homotypic interactions complicate the analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".