Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 649

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

Evaluating phase separation in live cells: diagnosis, caveats, and functional consequences

McSwiggen, David T., Mir, Mustafa, Darzacq, Xavier, Tjian, Robert·2019·Genes & Development

Abstract

The idea that liquid–liquid phase separation (LLPS) may be a general mechanism by which molecules in the complex cellular milieu may self-organize has generated much excitement and fervor in the cell biology community. While this concept is not new, its rise to preeminence has resulted in renewed interest in the mechanisms that shape and drive diverse cellular self-assembly processes from gene expression to cell division to stress responses. In vitro biochemical data have been instrumental in deriving some of the fundamental principles and molecular grammar by which biological molecules may phase separate, and the molecular basis of these interactions. Definitive evidence is lacking as to whether the same principles apply in the physiological environment inside living cells. In this Perspective, we analyze the evidence supporting phase separation in vivo across multiple cellular processes. We find that the evidence for in vivo LLPS is often phenomenological and inadequate to discriminate between phase separation and other possible mechanisms. Moreover, the causal relationship and functional consequences of LLPS in vivo are even more elusive. We underscore the importance of performing quantitative measurements on proteins in their endogenous state and physiological abundance, as well as make recommendations for experiments that may yield more conclusive results.

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 · 10.1101/gad.331520.119

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Liquid–liquid phase separation is a function of concentration. (A) A schematic of a phase diagram depicting under what set of environmental conditions (temperature, salt concentration, pH, etc.) the system will remain as a single phase or spontaneously form two phases. An increase in the y-axis would represent any environmental change that would weaken monomer interactions, e.g., increasing temperature. The dashed line depicts how the system responds to increasing protein concentration, further illustrated in B and C. (B) For proteins that can phase separate, at a certain critical concentration (c), droplets form. Past this critical concentration, production of more protein increases droplet size but does not change the concentrations in either phase, until eventually the concentrated phase entirely fills the space whereupon the system returns to the one-phase regime (A). (C) An illustration of the processes depicted in A and B as it occurs in the cell—in this hypothetical example, in the nucleus.
Figure 1. Liquid–liquid phase separation is a function of concentration. (A) A schematic of a phase diagram depicting under what set of environmental conditions (temperature, salt concentration, pH, etc.) the system will remain as a single phase or spontaneously form two phases. An increase in the y-axis would represent any environmental change that would weaken monomer interactions, e.g., increasing temperature. The dashed line depicts how the system responds to increasing protein concentration, further illustrated in B and C. (B) For proteins that can phase separate, at a certain critical concentration (c), droplets form. Past this critical concentration, production of more protein increases droplet size but does not change the concentrations in either phase, until eventually the concentrated phase entirely fills the space whereupon the system returns to the one-phase regime (A). (C) An illustration of the processes depicted in A and B as it occurs in the cell—in this hypothetical example, in the nucleus.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Evidence for LLPS in cells is largely phenomenological. (A) A bar graph quantifying the use of descriptive or phenomenological criteria in the studies from Table 1, separated into experiments that are performed on the endogenous protein (knock-in, KI) compared with those in overexpression systems (OE). The x-axis is the number of proteins from the 33 studies that were claimed to display that evidence. (B) A simulated example of how diffraction-limited fluorescence imaging can obscure fine features. The top row depicts various simulated structures, and the bottom row is the image acquired by the microscope detector. (C) A bar graph quantifying the use of assays which give direct evidence for LLPS in vivo. “Any direct evidence” is any example which demonstrated at least one of the categories of direct evidence. See Table 1.
Figure 2. Evidence for LLPS in cells is largely phenomenological. (A) A bar graph quantifying the use of descriptive or phenomenological criteria in the studies from Table 1, separated into experiments that are performed on the endogenous protein (knock-in, KI) compared with those in overexpression systems (OE). The x-axis is the number of proteins from the 33 studies that were claimed to display that evidence. (B) A simulated example of how diffraction-limited fluorescence imaging can obscure fine features. The top row depicts various simulated structures, and the bottom row is the image acquired by the microscope detector. (C) A bar graph quantifying the use of assays which give direct evidence for LLPS in vivo. “Any direct evidence” is any example which demonstrated at least one of the categories of direct evidence. See Table 1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Fluorescence recovery is misleading as an assay for LLPS. (A) A schematic of a Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching experiment. Fluorescent molecules in the cell are bleached with a strong laser in one spot and the signal is allowed to recover over time. In simple diffusion, as is expected in a liquid like a phase-separated domain, mixing of bleached and unbleached molecules is only governed by diffusion. In the case where some molecules may bind to an immobile element, diffusing molecules will mix first before the bound molecules can unbind and exchange. (B) Binding and diffusion have different impacts on the rate of recovery and extent of signal recovery. There are many methods to analyze FRAP data, the simplest being measuring the half-life of recovery (t1/2). If the molecule under study has a high rate of diffusion compared to its binding rate, modulating the size of the bleach spot (dashed circles in A) will not affect the recovery (dashed lines). If diffusion is the limiting factor, as predicted by LLPS, then the size of the bleach spot should affect the t1/2 of the curve. (C) Reported t1/2 times from the studies in Table 1. Cases where the same protein or protein domain have been measured more than once are indicated by connected lines. A few such examples have been labeled for reference. Bolded circles represent measurements on endogenous proteins while the other measurements are in overexpression conditions.
Figure 3. Fluorescence recovery is misleading as an assay for LLPS. (A) A schematic of a Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching experiment. Fluorescent molecules in the cell are bleached with a strong laser in one spot and the signal is allowed to recover over time. In simple diffusion, as is expected in a liquid like a phase-separated domain, mixing of bleached and unbleached molecules is only governed by diffusion. In the case where some molecules may bind to an immobile element, diffusing molecules will mix first before the bound molecules can unbind and exchange. (B) Binding and diffusion have different impacts on the rate of recovery and extent of signal recovery. There are many methods to analyze FRAP data, the simplest being measuring the half-life of recovery (t1/2). If the molecule under study has a high rate of diffusion compared to its binding rate, modulating the size of the bleach spot (dashed circles in A) will not affect the recovery (dashed lines). If diffusion is the limiting factor, as predicted by LLPS, then the size of the bleach spot should affect the t1/2 of the curve. (C) Reported t1/2 times from the studies in Table 1. Cases where the same protein or protein domain have been measured more than once are indicated by connected lines. A few such examples have been labeled for reference. Bolded circles represent measurements on endogenous proteins while the other measurements are in overexpression conditions.CC BY · 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

Research works printed but not linked: 97

  1. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.12.035 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1038/ncomms9088 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1016/j.ymeth.2004.03.028 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.010 · DOI
  5. 10.1038/nrm.2017.7 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.026 · DOI
  7. 10.1073/pnas.1509317112 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1038/s41594-018-0112-y · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.tcb.2018.02.004 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.042 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.08.027 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.048 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1083/jcb.201308087 · DOI
  14. 10.1126/science.1172046 · DOI
  15. 10.1073/pnas.1017150108 · DOI
  16. 10.1038/nphys3532 · DOI
  17. 10.1073/pnas.1103411108 · DOI
  18. 10.1126/science.aar2555 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1126/science.1239053 · DOI
  20. 10.15252/embj.201593517 · DOI
  21. 10.1126/science.aat1022 · DOI
  22. 10.1073/pnas.1504822112 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1242/jcs.206854 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.04.047 · DOI
  25. 10.1126/science.aao5654 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.008 · DOI
  27. 10.1073/pnas.122055299 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/s41586-019-1464-0 · DOI
  29. 10.7554/eLife.20010 · DOI
  30. 10.1021/js960019t · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.02.007 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1101/gad.295741.116 · DOI
  33. 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100913-013325 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1038/nature22386 · DOI
  35. Kroschwald S , Maharana S , Simon A . 2017. Hexanediol: a chemical probe to investigate the material properties of membrane-less compartments. Matters 1–7. doi:10.19185/matters.201702000010 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.cell.2013.10.033 · DOI
  37. 10.1038/nature22822 · DOI
  38. 10.1038/s41556-018-0148-6 · DOI
  39. 10.1038/nature10879 · DOI
  40. 10.7554/eLife.04236 · DOI
  41. 10.1063/1.470751 · DOI
  42. 10.1038/s41586-018-0174-3 · DOI
  43. 10.1126/science.aar7366 · DOI
  44. 10.1038/ncb2140 · DOI
  45. 10.1016/j.tig.2011.05.006 · DOI
  46. 10.1093/nar/gks701 · DOI
  47. 10.7554/eLife.47098 · DOI
  48. Mir M , Bhaduri B , Wang R , Zhu R , Popescu G . 2012. Quantitative phase imaging. Elsevier Inc., Amsterdam, Netherlands. · DOI
  49. 10.1101/gad.305078.117 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.7554/eLife.34110 · DOI
  51. 10.1242/dev.182766 · DOI
  52. 10.7554/eLife.13571 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.015 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 1898, Comparative cytological studies, with especial regard to the morphology of the nucleolus, J Morphol, 25, 266
  55. 10.1016/j.ceb.2010.03.002 · DOI
  56. 10.1038/s41594-019-0190-5 · DOI
  57. 10.7554/eLife.39695 · DOI
  58. 10.1083/jcb.201709007 · DOI
  59. 10.1038/nmeth.1401 · DOI · Paper page
  60. 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.01.013 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Oltsch F , Klosin A , Julicher F , Hyman AA , Zechner C . 2019. Phase separation provides a mechanism to reduce noise in cells. bioRxiv doi:10.1101/524231. · DOI
  62. 10.1002/jcp.1030490404 · DOI
  63. 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.05.042 · DOI
  64. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.047 · DOI · Paper page
  65. 10.1038/s41594-019-0193-2 · DOI
  66. 10.1126/science.aaw2644 · DOI
  67. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.02.027 · DOI
  68. 10.7554/eLife.20010 · DOI
  69. 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.06.088 · DOI
  70. 10.1038/ncb2157 · DOI · Paper page
  71. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.054 · DOI · Paper page
  72. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.057 · DOI · Paper page
  73. 10.1016/j.molcel.2019.07.009 · DOI
  74. 10.7554/eLife.12248 · DOI
  75. 10.1016/j.tcb.2004.12.001 · DOI
  76. 10.1529/biophysj.103.026765 · DOI · Paper page
  77. 10.1529/biophysj.105.073676 · DOI
  78. 10.1038/nature22989 · DOI
  79. 10.1038/nchem.1466 · DOI
  80. 10.1126/science.aad9964 · DOI
  81. 10.1016/S0042-6822(03)00107-7 · DOI
  82. Taylor NO , Wei MT , Stone HA , Brangwynne CP . 2019. Quantifying dynamics in phase-separated condensates using fluorescence recovery after photobleaching. Biophys J doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.08.030. · DOI
  83. 10.7554/eLife.22280 · DOI
  84. 10.7554/eLife.35621 · DOI
  85. 10.1039/c0sm00215a · DOI
  86. 10.1021/la980126y · DOI
  87. 10.1083/jcb.201801048 · DOI
  88. 10.1364/OE.19.001016 · DOI
  89. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.06.006 · DOI
  90. 10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.012 · DOI
  91. 10.15252/embj.201798049 · DOI · Paper page
  92. 10.1038/nchem.2803 · DOI
  93. West JA , Mito M , Kurosaka S , Takumi T , Tanegashima C , Chujo T , Yanaka K , Kingston RE , Hirose T , Bond C , 2016. Structural, super-resolution microscopy analysis of paraspeckle nuclear body organization. J Cell Biol 214. · DOI
  94. 10.1126/science.10.237.33 · DOI
  95. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.028 · DOI
  96. 10.1101/678649 · DOI
  97. 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.09.017 · DOI

Cited by

See all 649

Metadata

Authors
McSwiggen, D. T., Mir, M., Darzacq, X., & Tjian, R.
Venue
Genes & Development
Published
2019-10-08
Volume
33
Issue
23-24
Pages
1619-1634
ISSN
  • 0890-9369
  • 1549-5477
Cited by
649
References
5
Language
en
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UO1-EB021236, U54-DK107980)
  • California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (LA1-08013)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (003061)

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.