Supramolecular Switching of Liquid‐Liquid Phase Separation for Orchestrating Enzyme Kinetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dynamic liquid‐liquid phase separation (LLPS) of intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) and associated assembly and disassembly of biomolecular condensates play crucial roles in cellular organization and metabolic networks. These processes are often regulated by supramolecular interactions. However, the complex and disordered structures of IDPs, coupled with their rapid conformational fluctuations, pose significant challenges for reconstructing supramolecularly‐regulated dynamic LLPS systems and quantitatively illustrating variations in molecular interactions. Inspired by the structural feature of IDPs that facilitates LLPS, we designed a simplified phase‐separating molecule, Nap‐o‐Nap , consisting of two naphthalene moieties linked by an ethylene glycol derivative. This compound exhibits LLPS under physiological conditions, forming coacervate microdroplets that undergo multiple cycles of disassembly and reassembly upon stoichiometric addition of Cucurbit[7]uril and Adamantane, respectively, based upon competitive host–guest interactions. Importantly, such reversible control offers a unique route to quantify entropically dominant nature (Δ S =14.0 cal ⋅ mol −1 ⋅ K −1 ) within the LLPS process, in which the binding affinity of host–guest interactions (Δ G =−14.9 kcal ⋅ mol −1 ) surpass that of the LLPS of Nap‐o‐Nap (Δ G =−2.1 kcal ⋅ mol −1 ), enabling the supramolecular regulation process. The supramolecularly switched LLPS, along with selective client recruitment and exclusion by resultant coacervates, provides a promising platform for either boosting or retarding enzymatic reactions, thereby orchestrating biological enzyme kinetics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".