Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 338

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Concentration-Dependent Liquid Phase Separation Can Cause Toxicity upon Increased Protein Expression

Bolognesi, Benedetta, Lorenzo Gotor, Nieves, Dhar, Riddhiman, Cirillo, Davide, Baldrighi, Marta, Tartaglia, Gian Gaetano, Lehner, Ben·2016·Cell Reports
DOI 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.05.076PMC PMC4929146
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.05.076

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Graphical abstract
Graphical abstract CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 1 Dosage-Sensitive Proteins Have an Intrinsic Propensity for Liquid-Liquid Phase Separation (A) Ability of physico-chemical features to discriminate dosage-sensitive and granule forming sets from the rest of the yeast proteome. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is used to measure performances of individual properties and combinations of them. Performances of the catGRANULE algorithm (Experimental Procedures) are highlighted with a green square. (B) Distribution of granule propensities calculated with catGRANULE (Experimental Procedures) for annotated granule forming proteins (n = 120), dosage-sensitive proteins as reported in Sopko et al. (2006) (n = 770) and Makanae et al. (2013) (n = 777) and the rest of the S. cerevisiae proteome (n = 3,726). Boxes represent the range between the 25th and 75th percentile. Grey dashed line indicates the propensity value for Mip6p. (C) Performance of the model on “granule forming” genes (AUC: 0.86) and on the independent test set “granule related” genes (AUC: 0.72). See also Table S1 for full table of ORFs. See also Figure S1.
Figure 1 Dosage-Sensitive Proteins Have an Intrinsic Propensity for Liquid-Liquid Phase Separation (A) Ability of physico-chemical features to discriminate dosage-sensitive and granule forming sets from the rest of the yeast proteome. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is used to measure performances of individual properties and combinations of them. Performances of the catGRANULE algorithm (Experimental Procedures) are highlighted with a green square. (B) Distribution of granule propensities calculated with catGRANULE (Experimental Procedures) for annotated granule forming proteins (n = 120), dosage-sensitive proteins as reported in Sopko et al. (2006) (n = 770) and Makanae et al. (2013) (n = 777) and the rest of the S. cerevisiae proteome (n = 3,726). Boxes represent the range between the 25th and 75th percentile. Grey dashed line indicates the propensity value for Mip6p. (C) Performance of the model on “granule forming” genes (AUC: 0.86) and on the independent test set “granule related” genes (AUC: 0.72). See also Table S1 for full table of ORFs. See also Figure S1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Mip6p Changes Localization when Overexpressed (A) Cellular localization of Mip6-GFP at different levels of overexpression. Co-localization with Edc3p is observed when Mip6 is expressed from the Gal1 promoter. (B) Growth rates of strains expressing Mip6 under the control of different promoters, error bars represent SDs of three independent replicates. (C) Number of foci per cell as counted by monitoring GFP-tagged endogenous levels of Dhh1, Lsm1, and Mip6 in BY4741 (left), or counted in the same strains as in A); 50–100 cells for each condition were counted. (D) Western blot where an antibody against HA was used to detect different amounts of Mip6p upon expression under weak (GalS), medium (GalL), and strong (Gal1) promoters. See also Figure S2.
Figure 2 Mip6p Changes Localization when Overexpressed (A) Cellular localization of Mip6-GFP at different levels of overexpression. Co-localization with Edc3p is observed when Mip6 is expressed from the Gal1 promoter. (B) Growth rates of strains expressing Mip6 under the control of different promoters, error bars represent SDs of three independent replicates. (C) Number of foci per cell as counted by monitoring GFP-tagged endogenous levels of Dhh1, Lsm1, and Mip6 in BY4741 (left), or counted in the same strains as in A); 50–100 cells for each condition were counted. (D) Western blot where an antibody against HA was used to detect different amounts of Mip6p upon expression under weak (GalS), medium (GalL), and strong (Gal1) promoters. See also Figure S2.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Mip6p Foci Have Liquid Properties (A) Localization of the chaperone Hsp104 in cells showing either 103Q assemblies or Mip6p cytoplasmic foci. (B) An example of fluorescence recovery after photobleaching for Mip6p foci. (C) Average trends of fluorescence recovery after photo-bleaching for 103Q (left) and Mip6p (right) cytoplasmic assemblies. (D) Dot blot assay showing differential binding of the OC conformational antibody to protein extracts from wild-type (WT) cells or cells expressing 103Q or Mip6p. See also Figures S3 and S4.
Figure 3 Mip6p Foci Have Liquid Properties (A) Localization of the chaperone Hsp104 in cells showing either 103Q assemblies or Mip6p cytoplasmic foci. (B) An example of fluorescence recovery after photobleaching for Mip6p foci. (C) Average trends of fluorescence recovery after photo-bleaching for 103Q (left) and Mip6p (right) cytoplasmic assemblies. (D) Dot blot assay showing differential binding of the OC conformational antibody to protein extracts from wild-type (WT) cells or cells expressing 103Q or Mip6p. See also Figures S3 and S4.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Growth Resumes after Dissolution of Foci (A) Average growth rates quantified by automated micro-colony growth assay before dissolution of cytoplasmic Mip6p assemblies (dark green), after their dissolution (light green), or for the colonies in which dissolution was not observed (gray). Boxes represent the 95% confidence interval (CI), while points correspond to the growth rate measurements of all individual micro-colonies. (B) Average growth rate during re-growth after FACS sorting for cells displaying cytoplasmic assemblies (blue) and cells displaying soluble fluorescence (red). See also Figures S3 and S4 and Movies S1, S2, and S3.
Figure 4 Growth Resumes after Dissolution of Foci (A) Average growth rates quantified by automated micro-colony growth assay before dissolution of cytoplasmic Mip6p assemblies (dark green), after their dissolution (light green), or for the colonies in which dissolution was not observed (gray). Boxes represent the 95% confidence interval (CI), while points correspond to the growth rate measurements of all individual micro-colonies. (B) Average growth rate during re-growth after FACS sorting for cells displaying cytoplasmic assemblies (blue) and cells displaying soluble fluorescence (red). See also Figures S3 and S4 and Movies S1, S2, and S3.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Protein Domains Able to Form Foci Impair Growth when Overexpressed (A) A scheme of MIP6p sequence as annotated by ELM (Dinkel et al., 2016) (yellow, disordered region; purple, RNA recognition motifs; red, low complexity sequences. (B) Growth rate (black) of strains overexpressing Mip6p truncated variants with corresponding granule strength (green). Error bars represent SD of three independent replicates. Granule strength is calculated on fragments extracted from the Mip6p profile (Figure S7B) as explained in the Experimental Procedures. See also Figure S5.
Figure 5 Protein Domains Able to Form Foci Impair Growth when Overexpressed (A) A scheme of MIP6p sequence as annotated by ELM (Dinkel et al., 2016) (yellow, disordered region; purple, RNA recognition motifs; red, low complexity sequences. (B) Growth rate (black) of strains overexpressing Mip6p truncated variants with corresponding granule strength (green). Error bars represent SD of three independent replicates. Granule strength is calculated on fragments extracted from the Mip6p profile (Figure S7B) as explained in the Experimental Procedures. See also Figure S5.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Translation Rates Are Reduced in Cells Overexpressing Mip6p S35Met incorporation over time as measured in WT cells and in cells overexpressing Mip6p, where cytoplasmic foci are evident and fitness is impaired.
Figure 6 Translation Rates Are Reduced in Cells Overexpressing Mip6p S35Met incorporation over time as measured in WT cells and in cells overexpressing Mip6p, where cytoplasmic foci are evident and fitness is impaired.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Mip6p Cytoplasmic Foci Are Causative of Fitness Impairment (A) Cellular localization of Mip6p when overexpressed in different genetic deletion backgrounds. (B) Growth rate of strains overexpressing Mip6p in different genetic deletion backgrounds. The Gal1 promoter is integrated at the endogenous Mip6 locus. Error bars represent SD of three independent replicates. See also Figure S6.
Figure 7 Mip6p Cytoplasmic Foci Are Causative of Fitness Impairment (A) Cellular localization of Mip6p when overexpressed in different genetic deletion backgrounds. (B) Growth rate of strains overexpressing Mip6p in different genetic deletion backgrounds. The Gal1 promoter is integrated at the endogenous Mip6 locus. Error bars represent SD of three independent replicates. See also Figure S6.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Brangwynne, 2009, Germline P granules are liquid droplets that localize by controlled dissolution/condensation, Science, 324, 1729, 10.1126/science.1172046 · DOI
  2. Brangwynne, 2011, Active liquid-like behavior of nucleoli determines their size and shape in Xenopus laevis oocytes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 4334, 10.1073/pnas.1017150108 · DOI
  3. Decker, 2012, P-bodies and stress granules: possible roles in the control of translation and mRNA degradation, Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol., 4, a012286, 10.1101/cshperspect.a012286 · DOI
  4. Deléage, 1987, An algorithm for protein secondary structure prediction based on class prediction, Protein Eng., 1, 289, 10.1093/protein/1.4.289 · DOI
  5. Dinkel, 2016, ELM 2016--data update and new functionality of the eukaryotic linear motif resource, Nucleic Acids Res., 44, D294, 10.1093/nar/gkv1291 · DOI
  6. Geiler-Samerotte, 2011, Misfolded proteins impose a dosage-dependent fitness cost and trigger a cytosolic unfolded protein response in yeast, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 680, 10.1073/pnas.1017570108 · DOI
  7. Gelperin, 2005, Biochemical and genetic analysis of the yeast proteome with a movable ORF collection, Genes Dev., 19, 2816, 10.1101/gad.1362105 · DOI
  8. Girirajan, 2011, Human copy number variation and complex genetic disease, Annu. Rev. Genet., 45, 203, 10.1146/annurev-genet-102209-163544 · DOI
  9. Hyman, 2014, Liquid-liquid phase separation in biology, Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol., 30, 39, 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100913-013325 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Isogai, 1980, Characterization of multiple bends in proteins, Biopolymers, 19, 1183, 10.1002/bip.1980.360190607 · DOI
  11. Jain, 2016, ATPase-modulated stress granules contain a diverse proteome and substructure, Cell, 164, 487, 10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.038 · DOI
  12. Janke, 2004, A versatile toolbox for PCR-based tagging of yeast genes: new fluorescent proteins, more markers and promoter substitution cassettes, Yeast, 21, 947, 10.1002/yea.1142 · DOI
  13. Kedersha, 2005, Stress granules and processing bodies are dynamically linked sites of mRNP remodeling, J. Cell Biol., 169, 871, 10.1083/jcb.200502088 · DOI
  14. Kim, 2013, Mutations in prion-like domains in hnRNPA2B1 and hnRNPA1 cause multisystem proteinopathy and ALS, Nature, 495, 467, 10.1038/nature11922 · DOI
  15. Klus, 2014, The cleverSuite approach for protein characterization: predictions of structural properties, solubility, chaperone requirements and RNA-binding abilities, Bioinformatics, 30, 1601, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu074 · DOI
  16. Kroschwald, 2015, Promiscuous interactions and protein disaggregases determine the material state of stress-inducible RNP granules, eLife, 4, e06807, 10.7554/eLife.06807 · DOI
  17. Lavut, 2012, Sequestration of highly expressed mRNAs in cytoplasmic granules, P-bodies, and stress granules enhances cell viability, PLoS Genet., 8, e1002527, 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002527 · DOI
  18. Lee, 2013, Spatial organization of the cell cytoplasm by position-dependent phase separation, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 088101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.088101 · DOI
  19. Lin, 2015, Formation and maturation of phase-separated liquid droplets by RNA-binding proteins, Mol. Cell, 60, 208, 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.08.018 · DOI
  20. Makanae, 2013, Identification of dosage-sensitive genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using the genetic tug-of-war method, Genome Res., 23, 300, 10.1101/gr.146662.112 · DOI
  21. Malinovska, 2013, Protein disorder, prion propensities, and self-organizing macromolecular collectives, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1834, 918, 10.1016/j.bbapap.2013.01.003 · DOI
  22. Mitchell, 2013, Global analysis of yeast mRNPs, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 20, 127, 10.1038/nsmb.2468 · DOI
  23. Ogrodnik, 2014, Dynamic JUNQ inclusion bodies are asymmetrically inherited in mammalian cell lines through the asymmetric partitioning of vimentin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 8049, 10.1073/pnas.1324035111 · DOI
  24. Papp, 2003, Dosage sensitivity and the evolution of gene families in yeast, Nature, 424, 194, 10.1038/nature01771 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Parker, 2007, P bodies and the control of mRNA translation and degradation, Mol. Cell, 25, 635, 10.1016/j.molcel.2007.02.011 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Patel, 2007, Natively unfolded nucleoporins gate protein diffusion across the nuclear pore complex, Cell, 129, 83, 10.1016/j.cell.2007.01.044 · DOI
  27. Patel, 2015, A liquid-to-solid phase transition of the ALS protein FUS accelerated by disease mutation, Cell, 162, 1066, 10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.047 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Rapsomaniki, 2012, easyFRAP: an interactive, easy-to-use tool for qualitative and quantitative analysis of FRAP data, Bioinformatics, 28, 1800, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts241 · DOI
  29. Schisa, 2001, P granules and mRNA, Development, 128, 1
  30. Sopko, 2006, Mapping pathways and phenotypes by systematic gene overexpression, Mol. Cell, 21, 319, 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.12.011 · DOI
  31. Tartaglia, 2007, Life on the edge: a link between gene expression levels and aggregation rates of human proteins, Trends Biochem. Sci., 32, 204, 10.1016/j.tibs.2007.03.005 · DOI
  32. Teixeira, 2005, Processing bodies require RNA for assembly and contain nontranslating mRNAs, RNA, 11, 371, 10.1261/rna.7258505 · DOI
  33. Thandapani, 2013, Defining the RGG/RG motif, Mol. Cell, 50, 613, 10.1016/j.molcel.2013.05.021 · DOI
  34. Tomala, 2014, Fitness costs of minimal sequence alterations causing protein instability and toxicity, Mol. Biol. Evol., 31, 703, 10.1093/molbev/mst264 · DOI
  35. 2013, Update on activities at the Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) in 2013, Nucleic Acids Res., 41, D43
  36. van der Lee, 2014, Classification of intrinsically disordered regions and proteins, Chem. Rev., 114, 6589, 10.1021/cr400525m · DOI
  37. Vavouri, 2009, Intrinsic protein disorder and interaction promiscuity are widely associated with dosage sensitivity, Cell, 138, 198, 10.1016/j.cell.2009.04.029 · DOI
  38. Veitia, 2003, Nonlinear effects in macromolecular assembly and dosage sensitivity, J. Theor. Biol., 220, 19, 10.1006/jtbi.2003.3105 · DOI
  39. Veitia, 2010, Dominance and gene dosage balance in health and disease: why levels matter!, J. Pathol., 220, 174, 10.1002/path.2623 · DOI
  40. Walters, 2015, Differential effects of Ydj1 and Sis1 on Hsp70-mediated clearance of stress granules in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, RNA, 21, 1660, 10.1261/rna.053116.115 · DOI
  41. Wang, 2015, Version 4.0 of PaxDb: Protein abundance data, integrated across model organisms, tissues, and cell-lines, Proteomics, 15, 3163, 10.1002/pmic.201400441 · DOI
  42. Weber, 2012, Getting RNA and protein in phase, Cell, 149, 1188, 10.1016/j.cell.2012.05.022 · DOI
  43. Weber, 2015, Inverse size scaling of the nucleolus by a concentration-dependent phase transition, Curr. Biol., 25, 641, 10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.012 · DOI
  44. Wippich, 2013, Dual specificity kinase DYRK3 couples stress granule condensation/dissolution to mTORC1 signaling, Cell, 152, 791, 10.1016/j.cell.2013.01.033 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bolognesi, B., Lorenzo Gotor, N., Dhar, R., Cirillo, D., Baldrighi, M., Tartaglia, G. G., & Lehner, B.
Venue
Cell Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
222-231
ISSN
2211-1247
DOI
10.1016/j.celrep.2016.05.076
PMC
PMC4929146
Cited by
338
References
5
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.