pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.06329 · v1 · pith:6X55UWOInew · submitted 2019-07-15 · ⚛️ physics.bio-ph · cond-mat.soft· q-bio.SC

Cytoskeletal filament length controlled dynamic sequestering of intracellular cargo

Bryan Maelfeyt , Ajay Gopinathan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 21:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.bio-ph cond-mat.softq-bio.SC
keywords cytoskeletal filamentsfilament lengthintracellular transportcargo sequesteringmotor-driven transportpassive diffusioncomputational modelcell geometry
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cytoskeletal filament lengths determine where dynamic cargo sequestering regions form and create an optimal residence-time regime.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper builds a computational model of cargo that moves by passive diffusion in the cytoplasm and by motor-driven steps along explicitly drawn polar filaments whose lengths and orientations are varied. It shows that the resulting network geometry can produce localized regions of dynamic sequestration whose location depends on filament length and polarization direction. For some parameter choices the average time cargo remains in these regions rises and then falls as filament length increases, revealing a non-monotonic optimum. This length dependence supplies a possible control knob for cells to regulate transport phases by adjusting cytoskeletal geometry.

Core claim

Depending on the lengths and polarizations of filaments in the network, dynamic sequestering regions can form in different regions of the cell. For certain parameters the residence time of cargo is non-monotonic with increasing filament length, indicating an optimal regime for dynamic sequestration that is potentially tunable via filament length.

What carries the argument

A computational model that evolves the probability distribution of cargo positions under combined passive diffusion and motor-driven transport on randomly oriented polar filaments whose lengths are explicit parameters.

If this is right

  • Dynamic sequestering regions form in different parts of the cell according to filament lengths and polarization directions.
  • Cargo residence time can increase then decrease as filament length grows, producing a tunable optimum.
  • Regulation of filament length offers a mechanism to switch between transport and sequestration phases.
  • The length-controlled effect remains consistent with existing in-vivo observations of intracellular cargo behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Cells could adjust filament length through regulatory proteins to shift the location or duration of cargo trapping without altering motor speeds.
  • The same length dependence may combine with filament bundling or polarity sorting to produce more complex spatial patterns than the random-orientation model alone predicts.
  • Pharmacological or genetic perturbations that change filament length distributions could be used to test whether the predicted non-monotonic residence-time curve appears in living cells.

Load-bearing premise

Transport is assumed to occur only by passive diffusion plus motor-driven motion on polar filaments with random orientations.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures cargo residence times while systematically varying average filament length and finds no non-monotonic peak would falsify the reported optimal regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.06329 by Ajay Gopinathan, Bryan Maelfeyt.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A comparison of FPTD achieved via (a) simulation of 10000 cargos and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Different polarization biases for 150 filaments, each with a length of 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: State of the cargo distribution after moving (for 100 s) on and off a cytoskeletal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Survival probability at 1000 s as a function of filament length and polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The survival probability averaged over five different networks at each filament [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The average survival probability, as in Fig. 5a, but for different filament lengths, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) The survival probability for different filament lengths and polarization biases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The cargo probability distribution after 1000 s when the filament length is 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The spatial localization or sequestering of motile cargo and their dispersal within cells is an important process in a number of physiological contexts. The morphology of the cytoskeletal network, along which active, motor-driven intracellular transport takes place, plays a critical role in regulating such transport phases. Here, we use a computational model to address the existence and sensitivity of dynamic sequestering and how it depends on the parameters governing the cytoskeletal network geometry, with a focus on filament lengths and polarization away or toward the periphery. Our model of intracellular transport solves for the time evolution of a probability distribution of cargo that is transported by passive diffusion in the bulk cytoplasm and driven by motors on explicitly rendered, polar cytoskeletal filaments with random orientations. We show that depending on the lengths and polarizations of filaments in the network, dynamic sequestering regions can form in different regions of the cell. Furthermore, we find that, for certain parameters, the residence time of cargo is non-monotonic with increasing filament length, indicating an optimal regime for dynamic sequestration that is potentially tunable via filament length. Our results are consistent with {\it in vivo} observations and suggest that the ability to tunably control cargo sequestration via cytoskeletal network regulation could provide a general mechanism to regulate intracellular transport phases.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a computational model that evolves the probability distribution of intracellular cargo undergoing passive diffusion in the cytoplasm and motor-driven transport along explicitly rendered polar cytoskeletal filaments placed with random orientations. It reports that dynamic sequestering regions form in different cellular locations depending on filament length and polarization (away from or toward the periphery), and that cargo residence time is non-monotonic with increasing filament length for certain parameter regimes, implying an optimal, tunable sequestration regime.

Significance. If the reported length- and polarization-dependent effects prove robust, the work identifies a plausible physical mechanism by which cells could regulate cargo localization and transport phases solely through cytoskeletal geometry. The forward-simulation approach driven by diffusion and motor-stepping rules (rather than fitted quantities) is a methodological strength that supports exploration of parameter sensitivity.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and model description: no implementation details, numerical scheme for evolving the probability distribution, specific parameter values, validation against data, or error analysis are supplied. This directly undermines assessment of the central non-monotonic residence-time claim and its claimed robustness.
  2. [Results] The reported non-monotonic dependence on filament length is presented as a key result, yet the manuscript supplies no quantitative parameter ranges, filament densities, or motor processivity values at which the optimum occurs, preventing evaluation of whether the effect survives reasonable biological variation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model] Notation for filament polarization (toward vs. away from periphery) should be defined explicitly with a diagram or equation in the model section to avoid ambiguity when interpreting the sequestering-region locations.
  2. [Discussion] The statement that results are 'consistent with in vivo observations' requires at least one explicit comparison (e.g., a cited experimental length scale or residence time) rather than a qualitative assertion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important areas for improving clarity and reproducibility. We agree that additional implementation details and quantitative parameter information will strengthen the manuscript and will incorporate these in a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and model description: no implementation details, numerical scheme for evolving the probability distribution, specific parameter values, validation against data, or error analysis are supplied. This directly undermines assessment of the central non-monotonic residence-time claim and its claimed robustness.

    Authors: We agree that the current description lacks sufficient implementation specifics. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Methods section to detail the numerical scheme (finite-volume discretization of the advection-diffusion equation on a Cartesian grid with motor stepping rules implemented via biased random walks), list all simulation parameters (including diffusion coefficient, motor velocity, attachment/detachment rates, and filament density), describe validation against analytic limits (pure diffusion and infinite processivity), and report ensemble-averaged error bars from multiple runs. These additions will be cross-referenced from the abstract and Results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] The reported non-monotonic dependence on filament length is presented as a key result, yet the manuscript supplies no quantitative parameter ranges, filament densities, or motor processivity values at which the optimum occurs, preventing evaluation of whether the effect survives reasonable biological variation.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit ranges. The revised manuscript will state the filament densities (0.05–0.5 filaments/µm²), motor processivity (run lengths 2–8 µm), and polarization values (0.6–0.9) at which the non-monotonic residence-time peak occurs (typically for mean filament lengths 8–15 µm). We will also add a paragraph comparing these to measured cellular values and testing sensitivity to ±20% parameter variation to demonstrate robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper describes a forward computational simulation of cargo probability evolution under passive diffusion plus motor-driven transport on explicitly placed polar filaments with random orientations. All reported results (length- and polarization-dependent sequestering regions, non-monotonic residence times) are direct numerical outputs of the stated physical rules and geometry; no derivation step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation, or ansatz that is then relabeled as a prediction. The model is self-contained against its own assumptions and contains no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard biophysical assumptions about diffusion and motor transport; no new entities are introduced. Free parameters are the geometric descriptors of the filament network that are varied parametrically.

free parameters (2)
  • filament length
    Primary control parameter varied to observe effects on residence time and sequestering.
  • filament polarization
    Direction (peripheral or central) of filaments varied to determine impact on cargo distribution.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Intracellular cargo transport is governed by passive diffusion in the cytoplasm plus motor-driven motion along polar cytoskeletal filaments.
    Stated as the basis of the computational model in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5757 in / 1033 out tokens · 25695 ms · 2026-05-24T21:22:38.744522+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Howard. Mechanics of motor proteins and the cytoskeleton . Sinauer Associates (OUP), 2001

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    J. L. Ross, M. Y. Ali, and D. M. Warshaw. Cargo transport: molecular motors navigate a complex cytoskeleton. Current Opinion in Cell Biology , 20(1):41–107, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Arcizet, B

    D. Arcizet, B. Meier, E. Sackmann, J. O. R¨ adler, and D. Heinrich. Temporal analysis of active and passive transport in living cells. Physical Review Letters, 101(24):248103, 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    P. C. Bressloff and J. M. Newby. Stochastic models of intracellular transport . Oxford Centre for Collaborative Applied Mathematics, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    A. L. Wells, A. W. Lin, L. Q. Chen, D. Safer, S. M. Cain, T. Hasson, B. O. Carragher, R. A. Milligan, and H. L. Sweeney. Myosin vi is an actin-based motor that moves backwards. Nature, 401(6752):508–508, 1999

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    G. M. Langford. Actin- and microtubule-dependent organelle motors: interrelationships between the two motility systems. Current Opinion in Cell Biology , 7(1):82–88, 1995

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Z. Wang, S. Khan, and M. P. Sheetz. Single cytoplasmic dynein molecule movements: characterization and comparison with kinesin. Biophysical Journal, 69(5):2011–2023, 1995

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Mallik and S

    R. Mallik and S. P. Gross. Molecular motors: strategies to get along. Current Biology, 14(22):R971–R982, 2004

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    Klumpp, T

    S. Klumpp, T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, and R. Lipowsky. Movements of molecular motors: ratchets, random walks and traffic phenomena. Physica E, 29(1–2):380–389, 2005

    work page 2005

  10. [10]

    Klumpp and R

    S. Klumpp and R. Lipowsky. Cooperative cargo transport by several molecular motors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 102(48):17284–17289, 2005

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    J. Beeg, S. Klumpp, R. Dimova, R. S.Garcia, and E. Unger. Transport of beads by several kinesin motors. Biophysical Journal, 94(2):532–541, 2008. 17

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    M. J. I. M¨ uller, S. Klumpp, and R. Lipowsky. Tug-of-war as a cooperative mechanism for bidirectional cargo transport by molecular motors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(12):4609–4614, 2007

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    Ando, M.K

    D. Ando, M.K. Mattson, J. Xu, and A. Gopinathan. Cooperative protofilament switch- ing emerges from inter-motor interference in multiple-motor transport.Scientific reports, 4, 2014

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Huang, C

    K.C. Huang, C. Vega, and A. Gopinathan. Conformational changes, diffusion and collective behavior in monomeric kinesin-based motility. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 23(37):374106, 2011

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    Helenius, G

    J. Helenius, G. Brouhard, Y. Kalaidzidis, S. Diez, and J. Howard. The depolymer- izing kinesin mcak uses lattic diffusion to rapidly target microtubule ends. Nature, 441(7089):115–119, 2006

    work page 2006

  16. [16]

    W. H. Liang, Q. Li, K. M. R. Faysal, S. J. King, A. Gopinathan, and J. Xu. Microtubule defects influence kinesin-based transport in vitro. Biophysical Journal, 110(10):2229– 2240, 2016

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    I. A. Telley, P. Bieling, and T. Surrey. Obstacles on the microtubule reduce the proces- sivity of kinesin-1 in a minimal in vitro system and in cell extract. Biophysical Journal, 96(8):3341–3353, 2009

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    M. W. Gramlich, L. Conway, W. H. Liang, J. A. Labastide, S. J. King, J. Xu, and J. L. Ross. Single molecule investigation of kinesin-1 motility using engineered microtubule defects. Scientific Reports, 7(1):44290, 2017

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Conway, M

    L. Conway, M. W. Gramlich, S. M. Ali Tabei, and J. L. Ross. Microtubule orientation and spacing within bundles is critical for long-range kinesin-1 motility. Cytoskeleton, 71(11):595–610, 2014

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    I. Neri, N. Kern, and A. Parmeggiani. Modeling cytoskeletal traffic: An interplay between passive diffusion and active transport. Physical Review Letters, 110(9):098102, 2013

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    P. K. Trong, J. Guck, and R. E. Goldstein. Coupling of active motion and advection shapes intracellular cargo transport. Physical Review Letters, 109(2):028104, 2012

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    B´ enichou, C

    O. B´ enichou, C. Loverdo, M. Moreau, and R. Voituriez. Intermittent search strategies. Rev. Mod. Phys., 83:81–129, Mar 2011

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    S. M. Ali Tabei, S. Burov, H. Y. Kim, A. Kuznetov, T. Huynh, J. Jureller, L. H. Philipson, A. R. Dinner, and N. F. Sherer. Intracellular transport of insulin granules is a subordinated random walk. Proceedings of the National Acedemy of Sciences USA , 110(13):4911–4916, 2013. 18

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Scholz, S

    M. Scholz, S. Burov, K. L. Weirich, B. J. Scholz, S. M. Ali Tabei, M. L. Gardel, and A. R. Dinner. Cycling state that can lead to glassy dynamics in intracellular transport. Physical Review X, 6(1):011037, 2016

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Snider, F

    J. Snider, F. Lin, N. Zahedi, V. Rodlonov, C. C. Yu, and S. P. Gross. Intracellular actin-based transport: How far you go depends on how often you switch. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 101(36):13204–13209, 2004

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    Active and passive transport of cargo in a corrugated channel: A lattice model study

    Supravat Dey, Kevin Ching, and Moumita Das. Active and passive transport of cargo in a corrugated channel: A lattice model study. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 148(13):134907, 2018

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Mogre and Elena F

    Saurabh S. Mogre and Elena F. Koslover. Multimodal transport and dispersion of organelles in narrow tubular cells. Phys. Rev. E , 97:042402, Apr 2018

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    D. Ando, N. Korabel, K. C. Huang, and A. Gopinathan. Cytoskeletal network morphol- ogy regulates intracellular transport dynamics. Biophysical Journal, 109(8):1574–1582, 2015

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Kahana, G

    A. Kahana, G. Kenan, M. Feingold, M. Elbaum, and R. Granek. Active transport on disordered microtubule networks: The generalized random velocity model. Physical Review E, 78(5 Pt 1):051912, 2008

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    Spatial organization of the cytoskeleton enhances cargo delivery to specific target areas on the plasma membrane of spherical cells.Physical Biology, 13(6):066003, 2016

    Anne E Hafner and Heiko Rieger. Spatial organization of the cytoskeleton enhances cargo delivery to specific target areas on the plasma membrane of spherical cells.Physical Biology, 13(6):066003, 2016

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Hafner and Heiko Rieger

    Anne E. Hafner and Heiko Rieger. Spatial cytoskeleton organization supports targeted intracellular transport. Biophysical Journal, 114(6):1420 – 1432, 2018

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Gopinathan, K

    A. Gopinathan, K. C. Lee, J. M. Schwarz, and A. J. Liu. Branching, capping, and severing in dynamic actin structures. Physical Review Letters, 99(5):058103, 2007

    work page 2007

  33. [33]

    A. E. Carlsson. Structure of autocatalytically branched actin solutions. Physical Review Letters, 92(23):238102, 2004

    work page 2004

  34. [34]

    Mlynarczyk and Steven M

    Paul J. Mlynarczyk and Steven M. Abel. First passage of molecular motors on networks of cytoskeletal filaments. Phys. Rev. E , 99:022406, Feb 2019

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Wang and D

    Z. Wang and D. C. Thurmond. Mechanisms of biphasic insulin-granule exocytosis – roles of the cytoskeleton, small GTPases and SNARE proteins. Journal of Cell Science , 122(Pt 7):893–903, 2009

    work page 2009

  36. [36]

    Tomas, B

    A. Tomas, B. Yermen, L. Min, J. E. Pessin, and P. A. Halban. Regulation of pancreatic β-cell insulin secretion by actin cytoskeleton remodelling: role of gelsolin and coopera- tion with the mapk signalling pathway. Journal of Cell Science , 119(Pt 10):2156–2167, 2006. 19

    work page 2006

  37. [37]

    M. A. Kalwat and D. C. Thurmond. Signaling mechanisms of glucose-induced f-actin remodeling in pancreatic islet β cells. Experimental and Molecular Medicine, 45(8):e37, 2013

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    Stein, AlvinC

    Xiaodong Zhu, Ruiying Hu, Marcela Brissova, RolandW. Stein, AlvinC. Powers, Guo- qiang Gu, and Irina Kaverina. Microtubules negatively regulate insulin secretion in pancreatic cells. Developmental Cell , 34(6):656 – 668, 2015

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    Bryan Maelfeyt, S. M. Ali Tabei, and Ajay Gopinathan. Anomalous intracellular trans- port phases depend on cytoskeletal network features. Phys. Rev. E , 99:062404, Jun 2019

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    A. E. Hafner and H. Rieger. Spatial cytoskeleton organization supports targeted intra- cellular transport. Biophysical Journal, 114(6):1420–1432, 2018

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Schwarz, Y

    K. Schwarz, Y. Schr¨ oder, B. Qu, M. Hoth, and H. Rieger. Optimality of spatially inhomogeneous search strategies. Physical Review Letters, 117(6):068101, 2016

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    K. Chen, B. Wang, and S. Granick. Memoryless self-reinforcing directionality in endo- somal active transport within living cells. Nature Materials, 14(6):589–593, 2015

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    ben Avraham and S

    D. ben Avraham and S. Havlin. Diffusion and Reactions in Fractals and Disordered Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2000

    work page 2000

  44. [44]

    Bracey, Kung-Hsien Ho, Dmitry Yampolsky, Guoqiang Gu, Irina Kaverina, and William R

    Kai M. Bracey, Kung-Hsien Ho, Dmitry Yampolsky, Guoqiang Gu, Irina Kaverina, and William R. Holmes. Microtubules regulate spatial localization and availability of insulin granules in pancreatic beta cells. bioRxiv, 2019

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    Dawson, D

    M. Dawson, D. Wirtz, and J. Hanes. Enhanced viscoelasticity of human cystic fibrotic sputum correlates with increasing microheterogeneity in particle transport. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 278(50):50393–50401, 2003

    work page 2003

  46. [46]

    Caspi, R

    A. Caspi, R. Granek, and M. Elbaum. Diffusion and directed motion in cellular trans- port. Physical Review E, 66(1 Pt 1):011916, 2002

    work page 2002

  47. [47]

    Microtubule dynamics

    Rebecca Heald and Eva Nogales. Microtubule dynamics. Journal of Cell Science , 115(1):3–4, 2002

    work page 2002

  48. [48]

    A. G. Hendricks, E. Perlson, J. L. Ross, H. W. Schroeder III, M. Tokito, and E. L. F. Holzbaur. Motor coordination via tug-of-war mechanism drives bidirectional vesicle transport. Current Biology, 20(8):697–702, 2010

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    D. Cai, D. P. McEwen, J. R. Martens, E. Mayh¨ ofer, and K. J. Verhey. Single molecule imaging reveals differences in microtubule track selection between kinesin motors.PLOS Biology, 7(10):e1000216, 2009

    work page 2009

  50. [50]

    J. L. Ross. The impacts of molecular motor traffic jams. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 109(16):5911–5912, 2012. 20

    work page 2012