Computer simulations of model proteins with sticker-and-spacer architectures shed light on the formation of biomolecular condensates in cells.
Many of the organelles found inside cells, including the nucleus and mitochondria, are enclosed within a membrane and have been closely studied for decades. However, there is growing interest in organelles that can form and dissolve reversibly because they are not surrounded by a membrane. In particular, the physics and chemistry of membraneless organelles – also known as biomolecular condensates – is the focus of much research (Banani et al., 2017; Shin and Brangwynne, 2017; Choi et al., 2020).
Biomolecular condensates form when a mixture of proteins, nucleic acids and solvents separate into a phase that is rich in proteins?and?nucleic acids, and a dilute phase that contains relatively few of these macromolecules. Basic thermodynamics suggests that this process of 'phase separation' should result in a single large condensate that co-exists with a dilute phase because the energy needed to maintain the interface between a single large condensate and a dilute phase is lower than the interfacial energy for a system of smaller condensates. A process known as Ostwald ripening establishes this equilibrium by allowing a single large condensate to incorporate smaller ones (Lifshitz and Slyozov, 1961).
Systems containing a single large condensate, as predicted by basic thermodynamics, have been observed in in vitro studies (Elbaum-Garfinkle et al., 2015). However, there have also been reports of living cells that contain multiple condensates that do not grow beyond a certain size (Brangwynne et al., 2009; Berry et al., 2018). The form of phase separation that yields multiple droplets or condensates – a process known as emulsification – is thought to arise from the active production and degradation of macromolecules (Wurtz and Lee, 2018). However, there have also been reports of emulsification happening in the absence of these active mechanisms. How can one explain emulsification when such processes are not at work?
Now, in eLife, Srivastav Ranganathan and Eugene Shakhnovich from Harvard University report the results of simulations modelling the phase behavior of model polymers made up of multiple 'stickers' and 'spacers' that help to answer this question (Ranganathan and Shakhnovich, 2020; Figure 1A). These simulations show that the sizes of condensates are determined by two timescales: the time it takes for macromolecules to come into contact via diffusion; and the time it takes to form and break physical bonds between pairs of ‘stickers’ (Figure 1A,B).
If these two timescales are similar to one another, larger condensates will consume smaller condensates until there is just one dominant condensate (Figure 1C). However, if the timescale for diffusion is orders of magnitude faster than the timescale for bond formation, as is more often the case, most of the inter-sticker bonds will form among molecules that are part of smaller condensates. Moreover, new molecules will not be able to join the condensate because most sticker regions will already be tied up in existing connections. In the absence of stickers to bind to, molecules that are not already in the condensate will diffuse away. As a result, while it is relatively easy to grow a condensate up to a certain size, the lack of available molecules to form bonds with limits further growth, resulting in a roughly homogeneous distribution of smaller condensates (Figure 1D).
There has been much debate over how emulsification arises in cells. In addition to active processes controlling the size of condensates, another possibility is that some cellular components act as surfactants to decrease the energy of the interface between condensates and the solvent (Cuylen et al., 2016). Ranganathan and Shakhnovich now offer a third possible explanation. A fourth possibility is that proteins with block copolymeric architectures (a chain with blocks of two or more distinct monomers) form condensates via micellization (Ruff et al., 2015).
Biology seems to find a way to leverage all aspects of physically feasible scenarios in order to achieve desired outcomes. This is clearly the case with regards to the size distribution and apparent emulsification of condensates. However, it remains unclear how these different modes of emulsification interact with one another and to what extent each of these modes is used by different cell types. Theory and computations have offered elegant, testable predictions that have paved the way for designing experiments that can answer these questions.
Biomolecular condensates: organizers of cellular biochemistryNature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 18:285–298.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2017.7
Physical principles of intracellular organization via active and passive phase transitionsReports on Progress in Physics 81:046601.https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aaa61e
LASSI: a lattice model for simulating phase transitions of multivalent proteinsPLOS Computational Biology 15:e1007028.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007028
Physical principles underlying the complex biology of intracellular phase transitionsAnnual Review of Biophysics 49:107–133.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-121219-081629
The kinetics of precipitation from supersaturated solid solutionsJournal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 19:35–50.https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3697(61)90054-3
CAMELOT: a machine learning approach for coarse-grained simulations of aggregation of block-copolymeric protein sequencesThe Journal of Chemical Physics 143:243123.https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4935066
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Intracellular transport relies on multiple kinesins, but it is poorly understood which kinesins are present on particular cargos, what their contributions are and whether they act simultaneously on the same cargo. Here, we show that Rab6-positive secretory vesicles are transported from the Golgi apparatus to the cell periphery by kinesin-1 KIF5B and kinesin-3 KIF13B, which determine the location of secretion events. KIF5B plays a dominant role, whereas KIF13B helps Rab6 vesicles to reach freshly polymerized microtubule ends, to which KIF5B binds poorly, likely because its cofactors, MAP7-family proteins, are slow in populating these ends. Sub-pixel localization demonstrated that during microtubule plus-end directed transport, both kinesins localize to the vesicle front and can be engaged on the same vesicle. When vesicles reverse direction, KIF13B relocates to the middle of the vesicle, while KIF5B shifts to the back, suggesting that KIF5B but not KIF13B undergoes a tug-of-war with a minus-end directed motor.
The endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-resident protein TANGO1 assembles into a ring around ER exit sites (ERES), and links procollagens in the ER lumen to COPII machinery, tethers, and ER-Golgi intermediate compartment (ERGIC) in the cytoplasm (Raote et al., 2018). Here we present a theoretical approach to investigate the physical mechanisms of TANGO1 ring assembly and how COPII polymerization, membrane tension, and force facilitate the formation of a transport intermediate for procollagen export. Our results indicate that a TANGO1 ring, by acting as a linactant, stabilizes the open neck of a nascent COPII bud. Elongation of such a bud into a transport intermediate commensurate with bulky procollagens is then facilitated by two complementary mechanisms: (i) by relieving membrane tension, possibly by TANGO1-mediated fusion of retrograde ERGIC membranes; and (ii) by force application. Altogether, our theoretical approach identifies key biophysical events in TANGO1-driven procollagen export.