Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Active viscoelastic condensates provide controllable mechanical anchor points

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper develops a continuum model showing that active viscoelastic condensates can grow rapidly at a chosen site yet resist sustained forces, and identifies the parameter regime where C. elegans centrosomes achieve both.

desk verdict Coherent model with a genuinely interesting idea, but the quantitative centrosome numbers rely on an unmeasured coupling parameter and an illustrative alphaK=1 that sits outside the model's own linear regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14591 v2 pith:SRS36KAW submitted 2025-06-17 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.soft

Oliver W. Paulin , Júlia Garcia-Baucells , Luise Zieger , Sebastian Aland , Alexander Dammermann , David Zwicker This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phcond-mat.soft
keywords biomolecularcondensatesviscoelasticitycentrosomespericentriolarmaterialactivecorescontinuummodelingmechanicalstrengthC.elegans
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Cells routinely need structures that assemble quickly at a precise location yet resist sustained mechanical force; centrosomes, focal adhesions, and tight junctions all face this pair of demands. This paper argues that the two requirements are compatible when the condensate is viscoelastic and grows by active conversion of precursor material around a catalytic core: the elastic stresses that slow growth are the same stresses that give the structure strength. The authors construct a continuum model of such growth, show that viscoelastic stresses restrict condensate growth while imparting resistance to deformation, and fit the model to growth curves from C. elegans embryos. The fits identify a window of relaxation time and elastic modulus in which rapid growth and mechanical strength coexist, and reproduce the experimentally observed effect of microtubule depolymerisation on centrosome size.

What carries the argument

The central object is a continuum model of a viscoelastic condensate growing around a rigid active core of radius $r_c$, with scaffold material tracked by its volume fraction $\phi_S$ and its deformation by the left Cauchy–Green tensor $\mathbf{B}$. The scaffold is an upper-convected Maxwell-type material: $\mathbf{B}$ relaxes toward the identity on a timescale $\tau$, and stress follows a Neo-Hookean law with modulus $K$ (Eqs. 3–4). The load-bearing reduction is Eq. 8, which closes the model by approximating the mean scaffold fraction as the preferred value $\phi_S^0$ plus a small linear response $\alpha$ to elastic pressure and external stress, where $\alpha$ is an osmotic compressibility. This closure converts the full phase-field system into a coupled ODE–PDE problem for the radius $R(t)$ and strain profile, which can be fitted to centrosome growth data and scanned over material parameters.

What would settle it

Measure the elastic modulus $K$ and relaxation time $\tau$ of the pericentriolar material in C. elegans embryos — for example by microrheology, or by tracking shape relaxation after laser-severing microtubules — and check whether the values fall inside the 'acceptable' region of Fig. 6C, where the model both fits growth and keeps force-induced expansion below 1%. A complementary check is quantitative: the fit to nocodazole-treated embryos predicts $\sigma^*/K \approx 30$, so removing microtubule force should raise PCM scaffold density by a specific, measurable amount; if the observed density rise differs by orders of magnitude, the fitted stress scale is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that active viscoelastic condensates can satisfy two demands at once — rapid, localized assembly and resistance to deformation — provided material parameters lie in a specific regime. Growth inserts new scaffold into a strained network: the resulting elastic stress opposes further expansion and keeps the scaffold density above its preferred value, while relaxation of that stress over a timescale $\tau$ permits growth to continue; the same stress is what resists an external radial load $\sigma^*$, so that a condensate's strength grows with its stiffness $K$. For C. elegans centrosomes, the model finds a region of the ($\tau$, $K$) plane where simulations match the measured growth of the pericentriolar material and keep stress-induced expansion below a 1% threshold, and the fit to nocodazole-treated embryos yields $\sigma^*/K \approx 30$. The model also predicts that strain-dependent incorporation suppresses scaffold production near the centriole, making bulk incorporation dominant and explaining the observed isotropic growth of the scaffold.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the reduced model's closure (Eq. 8): scaffold density is assumed to deviate from its preferred value by a small amount that is linear in the elastic stress, with a phenomenological coefficient $\alpha$ set by hand to $0.1\ \mathrm{kPa}^{-1}$ rather than measured. If the real density response is not small or not linear, then the fitted window of relaxation time and elastic modulus — and the derived failure stresses — would not describe actual centrosomes, and the coexistence of rapid growth and strength could be an artifact of that choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, the same framework provides design rules for any biological or synthetic material that must self-assemble locally and anchor sustained forces: choose a relaxation time and stiffness inside the identified permitted region.
  • For centrosomes, the fitted parameter regime reconciles fluid-like rapid maturation with solid-like force anchoring, and the fitted ratio $\sigma^*/K \approx 30$ quantifies how large microtubule-mediated stress is relative to scaffold stiffness.
  • Elastic stress accumulated during growth caps the achievable growth rate, so condensates whose incorporation is fast compared with stress relaxation stall below their stress-free volume; cells must either slow incorporation or speed up relaxation.
  • Strain-dependent incorporation rates suppress material addition where strain is highest — near the centriole — which converts growth to a bulk-dominated mode and accounts for the observed isotropic incorporation of SPD-5.
  • The breadth of the acceptable elastic-modulus window means the mechanism tolerates the PCM softening observed as mitosis approaches, so a single mechanism covers both interphase and mitotic behavior.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct rheological measurement of the PCM in living C. elegans embryos (microrheology, or force relaxation after severing microtubules) would test whether centrosomes actually sit in the model's permitted region; the paper's phase diagram gives exact values to look for.
  • The strain-dependent incorporation mechanism suggests a general principle: mechanosensitive incorporation may be how cells avoid stress concentrations at nucleation sites, a feature worth testing in focal adhesions and tight junctions.
  • Because the theory predicts that core-localised incorporation is self-limiting under strain, condensate size may be controlled by mechanics rather than reaction kinetics alone, which bears on how centrosome-size scaling experiments are interpreted.
  • An independent check of the fitted stress scale is available: applying calibrated forces to centrosomes (optical tweezers, microfluidic compression) and measuring the volumetric expansion would test whether the PCM is as soft relative to applied mitotic force as the fitted ratio implies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a continuum model of a viscoelastic condensate growing around an active catalytic core. Precursor material is converted into scaffold material either at the core or in the bulk, and the resulting growth strains the scaffold, generating elastic stresses that feed back on the scaffold density through an osmotic-stress coupling linearized in Eq. (8). From this starting point the authors derive a reduced ODE-PDE model for the condensate radius, use phase-field simulations to justify the reduced description, analyze growth restriction and mechanical strength in limiting regimes, and compare the model to experimental growth curves for wild-type and nocodazole-treated C. elegans centrosomes. The central claim is that a parameter regime exists in which condensates can grow rapidly and simultaneously resist deformation, and that centrosomes can occupy such a regime.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the framework would provide a useful conceptual bridge between active-droplet models of centrosome assembly and the mechanical-anchor function of the PCM. The derivation in Appendix B is internally coherent, and the phase-field simulations in Fig. 2 materially support the assumption of spatially uniform scaffold density behind the reduced model. The paper also connects the model to new experimental data, which is a strength. However, the quantitative anchor-point conclusion currently rests on an unmeasured phenomenological coefficient α and on fitted parameters, so the paper is stronger as a model framework than as a quantitatively validated identification of the centrosome parameter regime. The central claim is defensible but needs additional support before it can be accepted as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II E and Appendix B (Eqs. 8, B17)] Equation (8) linearizes the osmotic-stress coupling under the condition α ≪ K^-1, but the strength example in §II I and the solid-limit formula (B17) are evaluated at αK = 1. In that regime the scaffold-density deviation ασ* is of order 10 at the example's failure stretch (ϵcrit = 10), so the linearization underlying Eq. (8) is violated and the quoted 100-fold strength increase is not a consequence of the model's linearized equations. If one instead restricts to αK ≪ 1, the elastic term αK ΔV in Eq. (B17) is only a small correction for the 1% radius-expansion threshold used in §III B, which would leave the anchor effect controlled by the hand-set α. The manuscript therefore needs either a measured α or a fully nonlinear osmotic response before this central claim can be supported.
  2. [§III B-C and Fig. 6] The estimated σ*/K ≈ 30 from the nocodazole fit is reported with τ = 100 s, but its location on the (K, τ) plane relative to the acceptable region in Fig. 6C is never shown. Since k+ and ¯φ are also fitted to the same growth curves, the wild-type and nocodazole curves do not constitute an independent test of the predicted strength regime; as presented, the fitted ratio could lie outside the rapid-growth-plus-strength overlap.
  3. [Fig. 6A-C] The boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable regions depend on two arbitrary thresholds: a mean-squared-error cutoff for the quality of the fit and a 1% radius-expansion limit for mechanical strength. No uncertainty quantification is provided for these thresholds or for the fitted parameters, so the existence and size of the claimed permissible parameter regime is not yet a robust quantitative prediction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, Table I] The table entries for τ− and τ+ appear reversed relative to the text: the table lists τ− = 100 s for the condensate bulk and τ+ = 0.1 s for the surrounding environment, while the text and Eqs. (A6), (A16), and (A17) define τ+ inside the condensate and τ− outside.
  2. [Main text and Appendix B] The notation for precursor partitioning is not unified: the main text uses η, while the appendix uses χ for the same quantity; please use a single symbol throughout.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B13)] Equation (B13) is difficult to read because of the malformed radical characters; please typeset it with standard square-root notation.
  4. [§II I and Appendix B, Eq. (B14)] The text mentions surface tension as a resisting effect for liquid-like condensates, but the reduced-model formula (B14) contains only the osmotic term; the role of surface tension in the reduced model should be clarified or removed from the text.
  5. [Fig. 6 caption] In the dimensional conversion, k− = 10^-3 s should have units of s^-1; please correct the units in the figure caption.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The viscoelastic-growth and strength mechanisms are derived from the model equations, but the 'predictions' against C. elegans growth curves are produced by fitting parameters to those same curves, so the experimental agreement is partly enforced rather than independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III A, Fig. 6A/D]
    "To determine permissible material properties, we fit our model to experimental data by varying k+ and ¯ϕ for given values of the relaxation time τ and elastic modulus K."

    The solid curves in Fig. 6D are labeled 'model predictions,' but they are generated with k+ and ¯ϕ chosen to minimize the squared error against the very experimental data points shown in the same figure. The agreement is therefore obtained by construction, not by an independent out-of-sample test. The acceptable/unacceptable boundary in Fig. 6A is a goodness-of-fit contour: it measures how well the fitted model can match the data, so it does not independently validate the model's growth kinetics. The paper is transparent that a fit is performed, but calling the resulting curves 'predictions' overstates the evidential weight.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section III C, Fig. 6E]
    "From a fit of model predictions with τ = 100 s to the experimental growth curves, we estimate the ratio of microtubule-mediated stress σ∗ to the elastic modulus K, which is on the order of σ∗/K ∼ 30."

    The σ∗/K ratio is extracted by fitting the model to the nocodazole-treated growth curves, and it is then used to rationalize the reduction in centrosome volume seen in those same curves. The 'capture' of the nocodazole response is thus a restatement of the fitted stress parameter rather than an independent verification. The paper does explicitly say 'fit,' so this is a labeling and evidential-weight issue rather than a hidden derivation, but it still means the experiment does not independently confirm the inferred stress magnitude.

full rationale

The core physical derivation is not circular: Eqs. (1)-(8) define a continuum model from conservation laws, a Neo-Hookean elastic stress, Upper-convected Maxwell relaxation, and a linearized osmotic-stress coupling, and the results that viscoelastic stresses restrict growth and impart deformation resistance follow from solving these equations. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or central premise is imported solely from the authors' prior work; the self-citations to companion papers (e.g., Ref. [28] for experimental data) provide data and context rather than a derivation that reduces to itself. The main circularity concern is that the paper calls fitted curves 'predictions': k+ and ¯ϕ are fitted to the growth data in Fig. 6D, and σ∗/K is fitted to the nocodazole data in Fig. 6E, so the agreement with those datasets is partly enforced. This lowers the independent-evidence value of the experimental comparison but does not invalidate the model-derived conclusion that an appropriate parameter regime can combine rapid growth and mechanical strength. A separate consistency limitation, noted but not counted as circularity, is that the strength illustration uses αK=1 although Eq. (8) was justified for α≪K^{-1}, and the unmeasured α leaves the quantitative parameter regime uncertain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the continuum viscoelastic model, which uses standard mechanics plus a set of modeling choices: neo-Hookean elasticity, Maxwell relaxation, sharp interface, well-mixed precursor, linearized osmotic coupling, and a reactive core. The linearized coupling parameter alpha and the reaction parameters k+, phi_bar, sigma*, beta are free; absolute material stiffness is not identifiable from the fits. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • alpha (osmotic stress-coupling coefficient) = 0.1 kPa^-1 (chosen, not measured)
    Introduced in Eq. (8) as a small parameter linearizing the osmotic pressure response to stress. Set manually for dimensional plots; the paper notes K can be rescaled with alpha, so absolute stiffness is not identified.
  • bulk conversion rate k+ = fitted per (tau, K) pair
    Fit parameter in Sec. IIIA when matching model growth curves to C. elegans data; also enters the steady-state volume formula (B13).
  • mean condensate material fraction phi_bar = fitted per (tau, K) pair
    Together with k+, accounts for the total precursor pool in the fits to wild-type growth curves (Sec. IIIA).
  • microtubule stress sigma* = sigma*/K ~ 30 (fitted)
    Estimated in Sec. IIIC by fitting the nocodazole-induced volume drop at tau = 100 s; a fit, not an a priori prediction.
  • stress-sensitivity beta = swept from 1e-5 to 0.1
    Ad hoc exponential dependence of k+ and q on |tr sigma| (Sec. IIID) used to explain isotropic incorporation; no experimental constraint.
  • relaxation time tau = scanned; fixed at 100 s for nocodazole fit
    Central viscoelastic parameter; the paper identifies an acceptable range rather than a unique value, and selects 100 s for one comparison.
  • elastic modulus K = scanned; not separately identifiable
    Appears only in combination with alpha in the fits (alpha*K); absolute K values depend on the arbitrary choice of alpha.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Continuity and momentum balance for a single-component viscoelastic scaffold embedded in a reservoir cell
    Eqs. (1), (5), (B5)-(B8): mass conservation and quasi-static momentum balance are standard continuum mechanics.
  • domain assumption Neo-Hookean constitutive law with equal bulk and shear moduli (Kb = Ks = K)
    Eq. (4) and Table I; chosen for simplicity, not derived from molecular interactions.
  • domain assumption Upper-convected Maxwell relaxation of the left Cauchy-Green tensor
    Eq. (3) introduces a single relaxation time tau; the material is modeled as a simple viscoelastic fluid, neglecting poroelasticity, aging, and nonlinear relaxation.
  • domain assumption Sharp-interface, spherically symmetric growth with negligible scaffold flux across the interface
    Sec. IIB; needed for the integrated model Eq. (6), but only tested indirectly via phase-field simulations.
  • domain assumption Fast diffusion of precursor, so phi_P is uniform (well-mixed reservoir)
    Sec. IIE; the paper notes diffusion-limited cases as an extension.
  • ad hoc to paper Linearized osmotic stress response with small parameter alpha (Eq. 8)
    Delta Pi ~ alpha^-1 (phi_S - phi0_S) is a phenomenological linearization; alpha is chosen by hand, and the linearization may fail at the large strains near the core.
  • domain assumption External force represented as a constant, radial surface stress sigma*
    Sec. IIIC; microtubule forces are dynamic and distributed, and the 100 pN value is taken from spindle-centering measurements, not from direct PCM force measurements.
  • domain assumption Reaction scheme with core-localized delta-source and bulk first-order conversion (Eq. 2)
    Chosen to capture centriole-driven and bulk PCM incorporation; not derived from molecular kinetics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Active viscoelastic condensates provide controllable mechanical anchor points." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRS36KAW

@misc{pith2026250614591,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Active viscoelastic condensates provide controllable mechanical anchor points},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRS36KAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14591}
}
read the original abstract

Many biological materials must couple mechanical strength with the ability to rapidly self-assemble at a specific location. In particular, biomolecular condensates readily self-assemble via phase separation, but may also need to resist external forces to fulfil their function. Spatial localisation of condensate formation can be controlled by active cores that preferentially drive the production of condensate material at a particular point, while resistance to external forces can be facilitated by viscoelastic material properties. To investigate the interplay of these two processes, we develop a continuum model of viscoelastic growth around an active core. We find that viscoelastic stresses restrict condensate growth, but also impart resistance to deformation. We investigate the effect of different incorporation schemes on growth dynamics, and test the influence of mechanical properties on condensate strength. Finally, we compare the predictions of our model to experimental data from centrosomes in C. elegans embryos, identifying a parameter regime in which rapid growth can be combined with appropriate mechanical strength, and studying how strain-dependent material incorporation may lead to isotropic growth of scaffold material. Our results provide general design principles for other materials that must reconcile rapid, localised self-assembly with mechanical strength, such as focal adhesions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14591 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (A) Various biological and synthetic materials must exhibit both rapid formation at a specific location and mechanical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Example phase-field simulation of condensate growth, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Growth curves for different reaction schemes, show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Variation of scaffold velocity (top) and strain (bot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The effect of viscoelastic stresses on condensate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (A) Phase space showing the quality of fit between simulation results and experimental growth curves for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Probing and engineering liquid-phase organelles

    Dan Bracha, Mackenzie T Walls, and Clifford P Brang- wynne. Probing and engineering liquid-phase organelles. Nature biotechnology, 37(12):1435–1445, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    O’Flynn and Tanja Mittag

    Brian G. O’Flynn and Tanja Mittag. The role of liquid– liquid phase separation in regulating enzyme activity. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol., 69:70–79, 2021. ISSN 0955-0674

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    The mechanobiology of biomolecular condensates

    Neus Sanfeliu-Cerd´ an and Michael Krieg. The mechanobiology of biomolecular condensates. Biophysics Reviews, 6(1):011310, 03 2025. ISSN 2688-4089. doi: 10.1063/5.0236610. URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5. 0236610

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0236610 2025

  4. [4]

    Germline p granules are liquid droplets that localize by controlled dissolution/condensation

    Clifford P Brangwynne, Christian R Eckmann, David S Courson, Agata Rybarska, Carsten Hoege, J¨ obin Gharakhani, Frank J¨ ulicher, and Anthony A Hyman. Germline p granules are liquid droplets that localize by controlled dissolution/condensation. Science, 324(5935): 1729–1732, 2009. doi:10.1126/science.1172046

    doi:10.1126/science.1172046 2009

  5. [5]

    Biomolecular condensates: organizers of cellular biochemistry

    Salman F Banani, Hyun O Lee, Anthony A Hyman, and Michael K Rosen. Biomolecular condensates: organizers of cellular biochemistry. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 18(5): 285–298, 05 2017. doi:10.1038/nrm.2017.7

    doi:10.1038/nrm.2017.7 2017

  6. [6]

    Dignon, Robert B

    Gregory L. Dignon, Robert B. Best, and Jeetain Mit- tal. Biomolecular phase separation: From molecular driv- ing forces to macroscopic properties. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 71(Volume 71, 2020):53–75, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Cellular sensing by phase separation: Using the process, not just the products

    Haneul Yoo, Catherine Triandafillou, and D Allan Drum- mond. Cellular sensing by phase separation: Using the process, not just the products. Journal of Biological 10 Chemistry, 294(18):7151–7159, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    The role of ordered cooperative assembly in biomolecular condensates

    Elgin Korkmazhan, Peter Tompa, and Alexander R Dunn. The role of ordered cooperative assembly in biomolecular condensates. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 22(10):647–648, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Jordan W. Raff. Phase separation and the centrosome: A fait accompli? Trends in Cell Biology, 29:612–622, 8

  2. [10]

    Woodruff

    Jeffrey B. Woodruff. The material state of centro- somes: lattice, liquid, or gel? Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 66:139–147, 2 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2020.10.001

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Kelley, Xiaohang Cheng, Leon Babl, Naoko Mizuno, Lindsay B

    Thomas Litschel, Charlotte F. Kelley, Xiaohang Cheng, Leon Babl, Naoko Mizuno, Lindsay B. Case, and Petra Schwille. Membrane-induced 2D phase separation of the focal adhesion protein talin. Nature Communications, 15 (1):4986, 2024. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-49222-z

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Mechanosensation of tight junctions depends on zo-1 phase separation and flow

    Cornelia Schwayer, Shayan Shamipour, Kornelija Pranjic-Ferscha, Alexandra Schauer, Maria Balda, Masazumi Tada, Karl Matter, and Carl-Philipp Heisen- berg. Mechanosensation of tight junctions depends on zo-1 phase separation and flow. Cell, 179(4):937–952.e18,

  5. [13]

    Phase separation of zonula occludens proteins drives for- mation of tight junctions

    Oliver Beutel, Riccardo Maraspini, Karina Pombo- Garc ´ ıa, C´ ecilie Martin-Lemaitre, and Alf Honigmann. Phase separation of zonula occludens proteins drives for- mation of tight junctions. Cell, 179(4):923–936.e11, 2019. ISSN 0092-8674. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.011

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.006

    ISSN 0092-8674. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.006

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Weber, David Zwicker, Frank J¨ ulicher, and Chiu Fan Lee

    Christoph A. Weber, David Zwicker, Frank J¨ ulicher, and Chiu Fan Lee. Physics of active emulsions. Rep. Prog. Phys., 82:064601, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Grill, Anthony A

    Daxiao Sun, Xueping Zhao, Tina Wiegand, Cecilie Martin-Lemaitre, Tom Borianne, Lennart Kleinschmidt, Stephan W. Grill, Anthony A. Hyman, Christoph Weber, and Alf Honigmann. Assembly of tight junction belts by zo1 surface condensation and local actin polymer- ization. Developme...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Hyman, and Frank J¨ ulicher

    David Zwicker, Markus Decker, Steffen Jaensch, An- thony A. Hyman, and Frank J¨ ulicher. Centrosomes are autocatalytic droplets of pericentriolar material or- ganized by centrioles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(26):E2636–E2645, 2014. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1...

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    Paulin, and Cathelijne ter Burg

    David Zwicker, Oliver W. Paulin, and Cathelijne ter Burg. Physics of droplet regulation in biological cells. arXiv, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13639

    2025

  11. [19]

    An eulerian nonlinear elas- tic model for compressible and fluidic tissue with ra- dially symmetric growth

    Chaozhen Wei and Min Wu. An eulerian nonlinear elas- tic model for compressible and fluidic tissue with ra- dially symmetric growth. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 83:254–275, 2023. ISSN 00361399

    2023

  12. [20]

    A phase-field model for fluid–structure interaction

    Dominic Mokbel, Helmut Abels, and Sebastian Aland. A phase-field model for fluid–structure interaction. Journal of Computational Physics, 372:823–840, 2018. ISSN 0021-9991. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.06.063. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S...

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    The disassembly and re- assembly of functional centrosomes in vitro

    Bradley J Schnackenberg, Alexey Khodjakov, Conly L Rieder, and Robert E Palazzo. The disassembly and re- assembly of functional centrosomes in vitro. Cell Biology, 95:9295–9300, 1998

    1998

  14. [22]

    R.W. Ogden. Non-linear Elastic Deformations. Dover Civil and Mechanical Engineering. Dover Publications,

  15. [23]

    Rios, Nicole E

    Matthew Amato, June Ho Hwang, Manolo U. Rios, Nicole E. Familiari, Michael K. Rosen, and Jeffrey B. Woodruff. Polo-like kinase 1 phosphorylation tunes the functional viscoelastic properties of the centrosome scaf- fold. bioRxiv, 2025. doi:10.1101/2024.08.29.610374. URL https:/...

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    Rios, Evgenia Zagoriy, Jef- frey B

    Fergus Tollervey, Manolo U. Rios, Evgenia Zagoriy, Jef- frey B. Woodruff, and Julia Mahamid. Molecular archi- tectures of centrosomes in c. elegans embryos visualized by cryo-electron tomography. Developmental Cell, 60(6): 885–900.e5, 2025. ISSN 1534-5807

    2025

  17. [25]

    Centrosome matura- tion requires phosphorylation-mediated sequential do- main interactions of spd-5

    Momoe Nakajo, Hikaru Kano, Kenji Tsuyama, Nami Haruta, and Asako Sugimoto. Centrosome matura- tion requires phosphorylation-mediated sequential do- main interactions of spd-5. Journal of Cell Science, 135(8):259025, 04 2022. ISSN 0021-9533. doi: 10.1242/jcs.259025. URL https:/...

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Hyman, and Jeffrey B

    Oliver Wueseke, David Zwicker, Anne Schwager, Yao Liang Wong, Karen Oegema, Frank J¨ ulicher, An- thony A. Hyman, and Jeffrey B. Woodruff. Polo-like kinase phosphorylation determines caenorhabditis ele- gans centrosome size and density by biasing spd-5 to- ward an assembly-com...

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Yuan-Nan Young, Vicente Gomez Herrera, Huan Zhang, Reza Farhadifar, and Michael J. Shelley. Geometric model for dynamics of motor-driven centrosomal asters. Phys. Rev. Res., 7:013004, Jan 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Rios, Ma lgorzata A

    Manolo U. Rios, Ma lgorzata A. Bagnucka, Bryan D. Ryder, Beatriz Ferreira Gomes, Nicole E. Familiari, Kan Yaguchi, Matthew Amato, Weronika E. Stachera, Lukasz A. Joachimiak, and Jeffrey B. Woodruff. Mul- tivalent coiled-coil interactions enable full-scale centro- some assembly...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Fantana, and Jonathon Howard

    Carlos Garzon-Coral, Horatiu A. Fantana, and Jonathon Howard. A force-generating machinery maintains the spindle at the cell center during mitosis. Science, 352 (6289):1124–1127, 2016. doi:10.1126/science.aad9745

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Andriotis, Philipp J

    J´ ulia Garcia-Baucells, Carlo Bevilacqua, Manuel Rufin, Cornelia Rumpf-Kienzl, Alexandra Zam- petaki, Orestis G. Andriotis, Philipp J. Thurner, Robert Prevedel, Sebastian F¨ urthauer, and Alexan- der Dammermann. Centrosome softening as a mechanical adaptation for mitosis. bioRxiv,

  23. [31]

    Catalytic growth in a shared enzyme pool ensures robust control of centrosome size

    Deb Sankar Banerjee and Shiladitya Banerjee. Catalytic growth in a shared enzyme pool ensures robust control of centrosome size. eLife, 12:RP92203, feb 2025. ISSN 2050-084X. doi:10.7554/eLife.92203

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    Differential requirements for cen- trioles in mitotic centrosome growth and maintenance

    Gabriela Cabral, Triin Laos, Julien Dumont, and Alexan- der Dammermann. Differential requirements for cen- trioles in mitotic centrosome growth and maintenance. Developmental Cell, 50(3):355–366.e6, 2019. ISSN 1534-

    2019

  25. [33]

    Tran, Manolo U

    Matth¨ aus Mittasch, Vanna M. Tran, Manolo U. Rios, Anatol W. Fritsch, Stephen J. Enos, Beatriz Fer- reira Gomes, Alec Bond, Moritz Kreysing, and Jef- frey B. Woodruff. Regulated changes in material proper- ties underlie centrosome disassembly during mitotic exit. Journal of C...

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Hyman, and Frank J¨ ulicher

    Louise Jawerth, Elisabeth Fischer-Friedrich, Suropriya Saha, Jie Wang, Titus Franzmann, Xiaojie Zhang, Jenny Sachweh, Martine Ruer, Mahdiye Ijavi, Shambaditya Saha, Julia Mahamid, Anthony A. Hyman, and Frank J¨ ulicher. Protein condensates as aging Maxwell fluids. Science, 370...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Theory of rheology and aging of protein condensates

    Ryota Takaki, Louise Jawerth, Marko Popovi´ c, and Frank J¨ ulicher. Theory of rheology and aging of protein condensates. PRX Life, 1:013006, Aug 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Fluid protein condensates for bio-inspired appli- cations

    Matthew J Harrington, Raffaele Mezzenga, and Ali Mis- erez. Fluid protein condensates for bio-inspired appli- cations. Nature Reviews Bioengineering, 2(3):260–278, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Isotropic incorporation of spd-5 underlies cen- trosome assembly in c

    Triin Laos, Gabriela Cabral, and Alexander Dammer- mann. Isotropic incorporation of spd-5 underlies cen- trosome assembly in c. elegans. Current Biology, 25(15):R648–R649, 2015. ISSN 0960-9822. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.060

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    Adaptive multi-dimensional simula- tions

    Simon Praetorius. Adaptive multi-dimensional simula- tions. https://gitlab.com/amdis/amdis

  31. [39]

    Witkowski, S

    T. Witkowski, S. Ling, S. Praetorius, and A. Voigt. Software concepts and numerical algorithms for a scal- able adaptive parallel finite element method. Advances in Computational Mathematics, 41(6):1145–1177, 2015. doi:10.1007/s10444-015-9405-4. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s1...

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    Olson, Edgar Gutierrez, Kelly Zhang, Lisa B

    Ana Carvalho, Sara K. Olson, Edgar Gutierrez, Kelly Zhang, Lisa B. Noble, Esther Zanin, Arshad Desai, Alex Groisman, and Karen Oegema. Acute drug treatment in the early c. elegans embryo. PLOS ONE, 6(9):1–8, 09 2011. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024656. URL https: //doi.org/10.13...

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    DUNE – The Distributed and Unified Numerics Environment

    Oliver Sander. DUNE – The Distributed and Unified Numerics Environment. Springer International Publish- ing, 2020. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59702-3

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    A high-resolution c

    Rebecca A Green, Huey-Ling Kao, Anjon Audhya, Swathi Arur, Jonathan R Mayers, Heidi N Fridolfsson, Monty Schulman, Siegfried Schloissnig, Sherry Niessen, Kimberley Laband, et al. A high-resolution c. elegans essential gene network based on phenotypic profiling of a complex tis...

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    Maddox, Nathan Portier, Arshad Desai, and Karen Oegema

    Paul S. Maddox, Nathan Portier, Arshad Desai, and Karen Oegema. Molecular analysis of mitotic chromo- some condensation using a quantitative time-resolved flu- orescence microscopy assay. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(41):15097–15102, 2006. doi: 10.1073/...

    2006 doi

  36. [45]

    Systematic analysis in caenorhabditis elegans reveals that the spin- dle checkpoint is composed of two largely independent branches

    Anthony Essex, Alexander Dammermann, Lindsay Lewellyn, Karen Oegema, and Arshad Desai. Systematic analysis in caenorhabditis elegans reveals that the spin- dle checkpoint is composed of two largely independent branches. Molecular biology of the cell, 20(4):1252–1267,

  37. [49]

    Phase-field formulation of condensate growth In this appendix, we introduce a phase-field formulation of the sharp interface model developed in the main text, describing growth of a viscoelastic condensate. We treat the scaffold volume fraction as a phase-field order parameter...

  38. [50]

    We express the system of equations (A1) – (A7) in spherical coordinates (r, θ, φ), where r represents the radial distance, and θ and φ are the angular coordinates

    Summary of spherically symmetric equations We now introduce a radially symmetric representation of the phase-field formulation derived above. We express the system of equations (A1) – (A7) in spherical coordinates (r, θ, φ), where r represents the radial distance, and θ and φ ...

  39. [51]

    We adopt a semi-implicit time discretisation to solve the coupled system at the n-th time step

    Details of numerical method To numerically solve the above equations, we use the finite element method, utilising the DUNE [37] and AMDiS [38, 39] toolboxes. We adopt a semi-implicit time discretisation to solve the coupled system at the n-th time step. We divide the time inte...

  40. [52]

    Note that integration over the angular directions simply results in a factor of 4π multiplying each term

    Detailed derivation of integrated model Integrating the continuity equation over the volume of the condensate from rc up to some radius r, we find ∂ ∂t ∫ r rc ϕSr2dr+ jrr2 = ∫ r rc sr2dr, (B1) where we have used the divergence theorem to convert the flux term to a surface inte...

  41. [53]

    As in the main text, we set χ = 1 for simplicity such that ¯ϕP = ¯ϕ− ϕ0 SVf/Vtot

    Steady-state solutions For an uncoupled system, in which elastic stresses do not affect the scaffold density, we can straightforwardly find analytical expressions for the steady state condensate volume Vf by setting the right side of equation (B4) equal to zero. As in the main...

  42. [54]

    In the absence of new material incorporation (reactions complete), conservation of mass implies that V ¯ϕS = const

    Deformation of a viscoelastic sphere In the limits τ → 0 (fast strain relaxation) and τ → ∞ (no strain relaxation), we can find approximate analytical expressions for the change in condensate volume resulting from the sudden introduction of a constant external stressσ∗. In the...

  43. [55]

    Materials and methods Experiments were performed in worms co-expressing GFP:SPD-5, mCherry:SPD-2 and mCherry:Histone (strain DAM946: spd-5(vie26[gfp::spd-5 +loxP]) I; unc-119(ed3) III; ltIs37[pAA64; Ppie-1::mcherry::his-58; unc-119(+)]; ltIs69[pAA191; Ppie-1::mcherry::spd-2; u...

  44. [56]

    For the imaging in Fig

    Imaging Live cell imaging was performed using a Yokogawa CSU-X1 spinning disk confocal mounted on a Zeiss Axio Observer Z1 microscope equipped with 100 mW 488 nm and 561 nm solid-state lasers and an Excelitas pco.edge 4.2 sCMOS camera and controlled by VisiView 6.0 software (V...

  45. [57]

    Nocodazole treatment For the nocodazole treatment experiments in Fig. 6E, perm-1;mdf-2 double RNAi-treated worms were dissected onto 24 x 60 mm coverslips in an 8 µl droplet of meiosis medium (60% Leibovitz’s L-15 medium, 25 mM HEPES pH 7.4, 0.5% inulin, 20% heat-inactivated f...

  46. [58]

    Image processing Post image acquisition, image stacks were processed using Fiji/ImageJ (version 1.54f), separating channels and extracting timestamp metadata, with subsequent analysis performed in MATLAB (version R2021b). Movies were aligned with respect to two reference time ...

  47. [2009]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e08-10-1047

    doi

  48. [2019]

    doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2019.04.001

    ISSN 18793088. doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2019.04.001

    2019 doi

  49. [2025]

    URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2025/ 09/10/2025.09.09.675178

    doi:10.1101/2025.09.09.675178. URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2025/ 09/10/2025.09.09.675178

    2025 doi

  50. [5807]

    doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2019.06.004

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.