4.8 Article

Quantification of Surface Tension Effects and Nucleation-and-Growth Rates during Self-Assembly of Biological Condensates

期刊

ADVANCED SCIENCE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/advs.202301501

关键词

biological condensates; liquid-liquid phase separation; nucleation-and-growth; protein aggregation; surface tension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liquid-solid and liquid-liquid phase separation (PS) is essential for the formation of functional and disease-associated biological assemblies. This study provides a general kinetic solution to predict the evolution of mass and size of biological assemblies based on phase equilibrium principles. The thermodynamics of protein PS is determined by saturation concentration and critical solubility, while the kinetics involve primary nucleation rate constant and a combined rate constant for growth and secondary nucleation. The formation of a limited number of large condensates can occur without active size control or coalescence phenomena.
Liquid-solid and liquid-liquid phase separation (PS) drives the formation of functional and disease-associated biological assemblies. Principles of phase equilibrium are here employed to derive a general kinetic solution that predicts the evolution of the mass and size of biological assemblies. Thermodynamically, protein PS is determined by two measurable concentration limits: the saturation concentration and the critical solubility. Due to surface tension effects, the critical solubility can be higher than the saturation concentration for small, curved nuclei. Kinetically, PS is characterized by the primary nucleation rate constant and a combined rate constant accounting for growth and secondary nucleation. It is demonstrated that the formation of a limited number of large condensates is possible without active mechanisms of size control and in the absence of coalescence phenomena. The exact analytical solution can be used to interrogate how the elementary steps of PS are affected by candidate drugs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据