Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Stable membrane signaling domains can arise purely from enzymatic cycling, with phase coexistence, interface sharpness, and nucleation sizes fixed by catalytic rates.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 17:42 UTC pith:D6TNDZDN

load-bearing objection Worthwhile mean-field theory of enzyme-driven phase separation, undercut by an internal inconsistency between the main-text and appendix critical-radius formulas. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.08356 v2 pith:D6TNDZDN submitted 2025-12-09 physics.bio-ph

Enzyme-driven phase separation

Damiano Andreghetti , Alfredo Braunstein , Luca Dall'Asta , Andrea Gamba This is my paper
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords active phase separationenzyme kineticsmembrane domainsModel A with global constraintinterfacial tensionnucleationMichaelis-Menten kineticssignaling molecules
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that the formation of stable signaling domains on membranes does not require equilibrium attractions between molecules: the repeated, energy-consuming interconversion of two molecular states by antagonistic enzymes is enough. Starting from the microscopic reactions of substrate conversion, product-recruiting enzyme binding, and exchange with a cytosolic reservoir, it derives a single stochastic equation for the local state difference, an active Model A with a global constraint. From that equation it obtains explicit mean-field conditions for phase coexistence and closed-form expressions for interfacial tension, domain fractions, maintenance power, and critical nucleation radius, all in terms of kinetic rates. If this is right, the same phenomena we call phase separation can be controlled by biochemical parameters that experiments can tune — catalytic rates, enzyme asymmetry, scaffold affinity — rather than by saturation concentrations. The authors support the derivation with lattice-gas simulations and point to agreement with reconstituted kinase-phosphatase and Rab5 systems.

Core claim

The paper's central claim: a two-state membrane molecule, switched by antagonistic enzymes that are recruited by their own product and exchange rapidly with a reservoir, obeys a single stochastic reaction-diffusion equation for the difference field phi = phi+ - phi- with multiplicative noise and a global constraint. The constraint — the effective catalytic rates depend on the spatial average <phi> — permits stable coexistence. Mean-field analysis gives explicit coexistence conditions in kinetic-rate space and closed-form expressions for interfacial tension, interface width, maintenance power, and critical nucleation radius; lattice simulations of the full particle process match the formulas.

What carries the argument

The object doing the work is a reduced Langevin equation for the non-conserved order parameter phi, in the class of Model A with a global constraint: phi evolves by diffusion, a drift from enzymatic interconversion, and multiplicative intrinsic noise, while the effective catalytic rates k_e^pm are functionals of the spatial average <phi>. This global coupling originates from the quasi-steady-state enzyme-slaving relation K_d^pm E^pm = phi^pm E_f^pm together with conservation of the shared enzyme pool, which makes the finite enzyme reservoir feel the whole membrane state. Polynomial approximations of the effective potential and noise amplitude (Appendix D) turn the theory into explicit formul

Load-bearing premise

The whole reduction stands on the assumption that enzyme binding and unbinding are much faster than phase ordering, so the membrane-bound enzyme distribution is slaved to the substrate distribution; if that separation of timescales fails in a real system, the effective rates, the global feedback, and every closed-form formula lose their justification.

What would settle it

Measure the time it takes enzymes to bind to and leave the membrane in a reconstituted system and show it is not much shorter than the time needed for domains to coarsen; that would break the quasi-steady-state reduction. Alternatively, a FRAP experiment showing domain material recovery times comparable to dense passive condensates would falsify the rapid gas-like exchange prediction.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Phase coexistence is selected by nonequilibrium kinetics: it occurs only while the catalytic ratio rho_0 lies between rho_- and rho_+, so changing a single catalytic rate or enzyme number can switch a membrane between homogeneous and domain states.
  • Interfaces are sharper when enzymes operate near saturation (small K_m) and when catalytic turnover is fast; the width is set by 1/sqrt(k_e^+ + k_e^-) and by the Michaelis constant through g(K_m/C).
  • Sustaining an interface costs energy: the power per unit length is proportional to the interface width and scales as the square root of the catalytic rate, meaning the domains continuously dissipate ATP or GTP at their boundaries.
  • Uniform states can be metastable: escape proceeds by nucleating a critical droplet of the favored phase, with R_c decreasing for saturation, larger kinetic asymmetry, and stronger scaffold affinity; without basal catalysis the uniform states become absorbing.
  • Material exchange across domain boundaries is rapid because particles behave as a gas: stability comes from interconversion, not from reduced mobility, a testable difference from passive condensates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: any pair of antagonistic, product-recruiting enzymes on a two-state membrane substrate should show the same phase diagram, so testing other GTPase systems (for instance Ras or Arf) would reveal whether the predictions extend beyond the phosphoinositide and Rab5 examples the paper cites.
  • Editorial extension: measuring steady-state domain area fraction versus enzyme concentration in a reconstituted system and comparing with Eq. (23) would extract K_d/C directly; Eq. (34) would then predict the nucleation radius without additional fitting parameters.
  • Editorial extension: the gas-like rapid-exchange picture implies that FRAP recovery in these active domains should be fast and largely independent of domain size, unlike dense passive condensates where recovery is limited by diffusion through the condensed phase.
  • Editorial extension: the multi-species extension in the appendix suggests enzymatic kinetics can program spatial ordering of interfaces — disabling one reaction makes a third species wet the interface between the other two — pointing to a biochemical code for multiphase membrane organization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a minimal stochastic model of enzyme-driven interconversion of two membrane-bound molecular states, with enzymes shuttling from a reservoir and product-feedback recruitment. Under assumptions of fast enzyme equilibration and a well-mixed reservoir, the six-field reaction–diffusion system is coarse-grained into a single non-conserved order parameter governed by an active Model A equation with a global constraint. Mean-field analysis yields an explicit phase diagram, coexistence conditions, interfacial tension (Eq. 28), interface width (Eq. 30), and power consumption (Eq. 31). Large-deviation theory is used to derive a critical nucleation radius (Eq. 34). Stochastic lattice-Gillespie simulations are used to test the predictions. The paper argues that the resulting phenomenology is consistent with experiments on phosphoinositide and Rab5 membrane systems.

Significance. If the derivations are correct, this is a valuable theoretical contribution: it offers an analytically tractable microscopic-to-mesoscopic route to active phase separation in a biologically relevant enzyme–substrate module, with closed-form expressions for several observables. The explicit stochastic simulation implementation and detailed appendices are strengths. However, the quantitative validation is weakened by the use of free-prefactor fits, and the critical-radius formula in the main text is inconsistent with the derivation in App. E. The conceptual framework—a global enzymatic reservoir providing the stabilizing constraint—is plausible and connects to the mass-conserved reaction–diffusion literature. The central idea is worth publishing after a thorough revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (34) and App. E, Eq. (E13)] The closed-form critical radius in the main text is not the one derived in the appendix. In the saturation limit K_m/C→0, Eq. (34) gives R_c = (3/20)√(D(k_e^+ + k_e^-))/|k_e^+ - k_e^-|, while Eq. (E13) gives (5/12) of the same combination. The κ-dependent factors also differ: f(κ) in Eq. (35) is not proportional to (1+2κ+(2/3)/(1+2κ))√g(κ) in Eq. (E13). Because Fig. 8(b) fits Eq. (34) with a free prefactor, the simulation cannot resolve this factor-of-~2.8 discrepancy; the quantitative confirmation of R_c is therefore not established. The authors should identify which expression is the actual prediction and test it without a floating prefactor.
  2. [Figs. 6, 7, 8(b) and Eqs. (9), (30), (34)] All three quantitative validations of the closed-form expressions use a free overall prefactor in the fit (explicitly stated for Fig. 6 and Fig. 8(b); implicitly for the B(φ) fit in Fig. 7). This tests only the shape and scaling of the predictions, not the advertised closed-form prefactors. The abstract and conclusions assert that 'analytical results are quantitatively confirmed'; this overstates the evidence. I recommend refitting with all parameters fixed to the simulation parameters, or at minimum reporting the fitted prefactor values and comparing them with unity/the derived values, and softening the quantitative claim.
  3. [App. D, Eq. (D4)] Eq. (D4) gives φ0 = (1+2K_m/C)(k_e^+ - k_e^-)/(k_e^+ + k_e^-)c, which has the opposite sign from the main-text result (Section II: φ0 ∝ k_e^- - k_e^+). With k_e^+ > k_e^-, Eq. (D4) predicts a barrier at positive φ, i.e. a stable minus phase, contradicting the text. Since the polynomial approximation is used in the derivation of Eqs. (28) and (E13), this sign error must be corrected and the derivation re-checked.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section I] The timescale separation leading to Eq. (4) is not quantified. An estimate for the cited kinase–phosphatase and Rab5 systems would help connect the theoretical regime to the experiments.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'centered at ρ=ρ0' is misleading; the physical region is an interval with endpoints ρ0/ρ_+ and ρ0/ρ_-.
  3. [App. B, Eq. (B8)] The notation ξ_R for the reaction noise is not defined in the main text; please define it consistently with Eq. (7).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained; the flagged validation issues are correctness risks, not circularity.

full rationale

The load-bearing derivation is self-contained. Eqs. (1)-(3) define the microscopic reactions; App. B coarse-grains them into the moments (B6)-(B7); Eqs. (4)-(5) impose quasi-steady-state enzyme slaving and reservoir conservation, leading to the single-field Langevin equation (7)-(11). The global constraint is derived from enzyme-number conservation, not assumed from the target phase diagram. The mean-field potential (17), phase diagram (18)-(23), interfacial tension (28), and the large-deviation critical radius (33) are algebraic consequences of the drift/noise A, B in Eq. (7), with no parameter fitted to the predicted quantities entering the derivation. Self-citations [21,22,44,54] support the known role of global conservation or simulation/measurement conventions, but the main argument does not rest on them, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to force the model choice. Simulations use the particle-level Gillespie process, an independent benchmark. The honest concerns are not circularity: several validations (Figs. 6, 7, 8b) fit an overall prefactor as a free parameter (e.g., Fig. 8(b) says 'using a single prefactor as a free parameter'), so absolute magnitudes are not tested; and the announced Eq. (34) disagrees with the App. E derivation, Eq. (E13) (e.g., at Km/C -> 0 the prefactor is 3/20 in Eq. (34) but 5/12 in Eq. (E13) for the same combination), while App. D Eq. (D4) gives phi0 positive for k_e^+ > k_e^- contrary to the main-text sign statement. These are internal-consistency/quantitative-support problems, not reductions of the output to the input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analytical results rest on idealizations: fast enzyme exchange, well-mixed reservoir, homogeneous total concentration, adiabatic tracking of the global average, and polynomial approximations for the potential and noise. No new physical entity is proposed. Validation fits introduce free prefactors that are not part of the derivation.

free parameters (3)
  • prefactor for interface width w (Eq. 30, Fig. 6) = free, not reported
    The predicted w-dependence is fit to simulation data with a prefactor as a free parameter, so the analytic numerical coefficient is not independently confirmed.
  • overall prefactor for noise amplitude B (Eq. 9, Fig. 7) = free, not reported
    The B(phi) shape is tested by fitting an overall multiplicative constant to binned simulation data.
  • prefactor for critical radius R_c (Eq. 34, Fig. 8) = free, not reported
    A single prefactor is fitted to survival-probability data, and the formula also conflicts with the Appendix E derivation.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Michaelis-Menten rate laws and elementary reactions Eqs. (1)-(3)
    Microscopic enzyme kinetics are taken as the starting point; the entire mesoscopic derivation follows from these rates.
  • domain assumption Reservoir is effectively well mixed, D_f -> infinity, so E_f^pm are spatially uniform
    Used to derive the global constraint and Eq. (11); physically plausible for cytosol on membrane timescales but not derived.
  • domain assumption Fast enzyme association/dissociation quasi-steady state, Eq. (4): K_d^pm E^pm = phi^pm E_f^pm
    Central slaving assumption on which the global constraint and all closed-form results depend; if enzyme exchange is slow, the active Model A reduction fails.
  • domain assumption Total concentration c(x,t) is homogeneous after a transient and diffusional noise is subdominant
    Reduces the six-field system to one order parameter; supported by an App. B scaling argument and Ref. [60], but not directly verified by simulation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic separation: the spatial average <phi> is slow and treated as a fixed parameter
    Used for the potential analysis and phase diagram; justified a posteriori by the slow relaxation of <phi> in simulations, but not proven from the microscopic parameters.
  • standard math Thin-wall / large-deviation approximation with polynomial approximations for V and B
    Standard saddle-point technique, but here it produces an internal inconsistency between Eq. (34) and Eq. (E13), so the approximation chain is not reliable as written.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20681 in / 19276 out tokens · 193348 ms · 2026-08-03T17:42:35.945813+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The formation of polarized signaling domains on cell membranes is a fundamental example of biological pattern formation. While such patterns resemble structures from equilibrium phase separation, they are intrinsically non-equilibrium, driven by energy-consuming enzymatic cycles that switch molecules like phosphoinositides or small GTPases between distinct states. Here, we develop a minimal model of this enzyme-driven phase ordering process. Starting from microscopic reaction kinetics, we derive a mesoscopic theory that belongs to the class of active Model A with a global constraint. This framework yields an explicit mean-field phase diagram and closed-form expressions for key observables, such as interfacial tension, domain fractions, and phase coexistence boundaries, in terms of kinetic rates. In this context, phase coexistence is controlled by non-equilibrium parameters like catalytic rates and enzymatic asymmetry, rather than equilibrium parameters such as saturation concentrations. The resulting phase-separated domains rapidly exchange material with their surroundings. Their maintenance requires a continuous power input determined by enzymatic kinetics. The predicted phenomenology is consistent with experimental observations on reconstituted systems of phosphoinositide and Rab5 membrane patterning. We further study how metastable uniform states decay via nucleation of minority-phase domains and subsequent coarsening, driven by an effective interfacial tension. Using large deviation theory, we derive the critical nucleation radius under the action of the intrinsic, multiplicative chemical noise. The analytical results are quantitatively confirmed by stochastic simulations of the process. Our work provides a theoretical framework identifying key biochemical parameters controlling active phase separation on membrane scaffolds, offering testable predictions for experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08356 by Alfredo Braunstein, Andrea Gamba, Damiano Andreghetti, Luca Dall'Asta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the model as a chemical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Adiabatic relaxation in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a,b) Steady-state phase diagram in the reduced parameter space ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Numerical measurements (symbols) of the steady [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Amplitude of field fluctuations as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Numerically determined interface width [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Nucleation dynamics and critical radius. (a) Sur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Examples of three-way phase separation in an ab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Nucleation and time-reversal symmetry breaking in nonconserved scalar field theories

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    Extends classical nucleation theory to nonequilibrium non-conserved scalar fields by showing the time-reversed-relaxation ansatz fails and deriving corrected quasipotentials via two independent routes, validated numerically.

  2. Nonequilibrium nucleation theory for nonconserved fields: from active matter to population dynamics

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Constructs nonequilibrium nucleation theory for nonconserved order parameters and reports explicit predictions that agree with numerical simulations in active matter and population dynamics models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Alberts, R

    B. Alberts, R. Heald, A. Johnson, D. Morgan, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and P. Walter,Molecular biology of the cell, 7th ed. (W.W. Norton, New York, NY, 2022). 16

    2022

  2. [2]

    A. A. Hyman, C. A. Weber, and F. J¨ ulicher, Liquid- Liquid Phase Separation in Biology, Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology30, 39 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    S. F. Banani, H. O. Lee, A. A. Hyman, and M. K. Rosen, Biomolecular condensates: organizers of cellular biochemistry, Nature reviews Molecular cell biology18, 285 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    X. Fang, K. Kruse, T. Lu, and J. Wang, Nonequilibrium physics in biology, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045004 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Musacchio, On the role of phase separation in the biogenesis of membraneless compartments, The EMBO journal41, e109952 (2022)

    A. Musacchio, On the role of phase separation in the biogenesis of membraneless compartments, The EMBO journal41, e109952 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    M. E. Cates and C. Nardini, Active phase separation: new phenomenology from non-equilibrium physics, Re- ports on Progress in Physics88, 056601 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Zwicker, A

    D. Zwicker, A. A. Hyman, and F. J¨ ulicher, Suppression of Ostwald ripening in active emulsions, Phys. Rev. E92, 10.1103/physreve.92.012317 (2015)

    doi:10.1103/physreve.92.012317 2015

  8. [8]

    Brauns, H

    F. Brauns, H. Weyer, J. Halatek, J. Yoon, and E. Frey, Wavelength selection by interrupted coarsen- ing in reaction-diffusion systems, Physical Review Letters 126, 104101 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    V. T. Yan, A. Narayanan, T. Wiegand, F. J¨ ulicher, and S. W. Grill, A condensate dynamic instability orches- trates actomyosin cortex activation, Nature609, 597 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    A. Das, A. Polley, and M. Rao, Phase segregation of pas- sive advective particles in an active medium, Physical Review Letters116, 068306 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    M. W. Cotton, R. Golestanian, and J. Agudo-Canalejo, Catalysis-induced phase separation and autoregulation of enzymatic activity, Physical Review Letters129, 158101 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    S. Saha, A. Das, C. Patra, A. A. Anilkumar, P. Sil, S. Mayor, and M. Rao, Active emulsions in living cell membranes driven by contractile stresses and transbi- layer coupling, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2123056119 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Burkart, M

    T. Burkart, M. C. Wigbers, L. W¨ urthner, and E. Frey, Control of protein-based pattern formation via guiding cues, Nature Reviews Physics4, 511 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Cates and C

    M. Cates and C. Nardini, Classical nucleation theory for active fluid phase separation, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 098203 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Ziethen, J

    N. Ziethen, J. Kirschbaum, and D. Zwicker, Nucleation of chemically active droplets, Physical Review Letters130, 248201 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Demarchi, A

    L. Demarchi, A. Goychuk, I. Maryshev, and E. Frey, Enzyme-enriched condensates show self-propulsion, po- sitioning, and coexistence, Physical Review Letters130, 128401 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Zhang, A

    Y. Zhang, A. Manacorda, and ´E. Fodor, Species inter- conversion of deformable particles yields transient phase separation, New Journal of Physics27, 043023 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    S. D. Hansen, W. Y. Huang, Y. K. Lee, P. Bieling, S. M. Christensen, and J. T. Groves, Stochastic geometry sens- ing and polarization in a lipid kinase–phosphatase com- petitive reaction, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 15013 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    A. A. Lee, W. Y. Huang, S. D. Hansen, N. H. Kim, S. Al- varez, and J. T. Groves, Stochasticity and positive feed- back enable enzyme kinetics at the membrane to sense reaction size, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2103626118 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Cezanne, J

    A. Cezanne, J. Lauer, A. Solomatina, I. F. Sbalzarini, and M. Zerial, A non-linear system patterns Rab5 GT- Pase on the membrane, eLife9, e54434 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    Gamba, A

    A. Gamba, A. de Candia, S. Di Talia, A. Coniglio, F. Bus- solino, and G. Serini, Diffusion-limited phase separation in eukaryotic chemotaxis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 16927 (2005)

    2005

  22. [22]

    Gamba, I

    A. Gamba, I. Kolokolov, V. Lebedev, and G. Ortenzi, Patch coalescence as a mechanism for eukaryotic di- rectional sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.99.158101 (2007)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2007

  23. [23]

    Otsuji, S

    M. Otsuji, S. Ishihara, C. Co, K. Kaibuchi, A. Mochizuki, and S. Kuroda, A mass conserved reaction–diffusion sys- tem captures properties of cell polarity, PLoS computa- tional biology3, e108 (2007)

    2007

  24. [24]

    Halatek and E

    J. Halatek and E. Frey, Rethinking pattern formation in reaction–diffusion systems, Nature Physics14, 507 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    Halatek, F

    J. Halatek, F. Brauns, and E. Frey, Self-organization principles of intracellular pattern formation, Philosophi- cal Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sci- ences373, 20170107 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Brauns, J

    F. Brauns, J. Halatek, and E. Frey, Phase-space geometry of mass-conserving reaction-diffusion dynamics, Physical Review X10, 041036 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Reviews of Modern Physics49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  28. [28]

    Sire and S

    C. Sire and S. N. Majumdar, Coarsening in the q-state Potts model and the Ising model with globally conserved magnetization, Physical Review E52, 244 (1995)

    1995

  29. [29]

    N. R. Leslie, R. M. Biondi, and D. R. Alessi, Phosphoinositide-regulated kinases and phosphoinositide phosphatases, Chemical Reviews101, 2365 (2001)

    2001

  30. [30]

    C. B. Marshall, D. Meiri, M. J. Smith, M. T. Mazhab- Jafari, G. M. Gasmi-Seabrook, R. Rottapel, V. Stam- bolic, and M. Ikura, Probing the GTPase cycle with real- time NMR: GAP and GEF activities in cell extracts, Methods57, 473 (2012)

    2012

  31. [31]

    C. W. Gardiner,Handbook of Stochastic Methods for Physics, Chemistry and the Natural Sciences(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1985)

    1985

  32. [32]

    P. C. Martin, E. D. Siggia, and H. A. Rose, Statistical dynamics of classical systems, Physical Review A8, 423 (1973)

    1973

  33. [33]

    Kamenev,Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    A. Kamenev,Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    A. J. Bray, Theory of phase-ordering kinetics, Advances in Physics43, 357 (1994)

    1994

  35. [35]

    Ridley, M

    A. Ridley, M. Schwartz, K. Burridge, R. Firtel, M. Gins- berg, G. Borisy, J. Parsons, and A. Horwitz, Cell migra- tion: integrating signals from front to back., Science302, 1704 (2003)

    2003

  36. [36]

    Kolsch, P

    V. Kolsch, P. G. Charest, and R. A. Firtel, The regulation of cell motility and chemotaxis by phospholipid signaling, Journal of Cell Science121, 551 (2008)

    2008

  37. [37]

    C. R. Cowan and A. A. Hyman, Asymmetric cell division in C. elegans: cortical polarity and spindle positioning, Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol.20, 427 (2004)

    2004

  38. [38]

    Z. G. Venkei and Y. M. Yamashita, Emerging mecha- nisms of asymmetric stem cell division., J Cell Biol217, 3785 (2018). 17

    2018

  39. [39]

    A. S. Howell, M. Jin, C.-F. Wu, T. R. Zyla, T. C. Elston, and D. J. Lew, Negative feedback enhances robustness in the yeast polarity establishment circuit, Cell149, 322 (2012)

    2012

  40. [40]

    Wu, J.-G

    C.-F. Wu, J.-G. Chiou, M. Minakova, B. Woods, D. Tsy- gankov, T. R. Zyla, N. S. Savage, T. C. Elston, and D. J. Lew, Role of competition between polarity sites in estab- lishing a unique front, Elife4, e11611 (2015)

    2015

  41. [41]

    M. F. Krummel and I. Macara, Maintenance and mod- ulation of T cell polarity, Nature Immunology7, 1143 (2006)

    2006

  42. [42]

    M. B. Stone, S. A. Shelby, M. F. N´ u˜ nez, K. Wisser, and S. L. Veatch, Protein sorting by lipid phase-like domains supports emergent signaling function in B lymphocyte plasma membranes, eLife6, e19891 (2017)

    2017

  43. [43]

    K. J. Day, G. Kago, L. Wang, J. B. Richter, C. C. Hay- den, E. M. Lafer, and J. C. Stachowiak, Liquid-like pro- tein interactions catalyse assembly of endocytic vesicles, Nat. Cell Biol.23, 366 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Zamparo, D

    M. Zamparo, D. Valdembri, G. Serini, I. V. Kolokolov, V. V. Lebedev, L. Dall’Asta, and A. Gamba, Optimality in self-organized molecular sorting, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 088101 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Wedlich-Soldner and R

    R. Wedlich-Soldner and R. Li, Spontaneous cell polariza- tion: undermining determinism., Nat. Cell Biol.5, 267 (2003)

    2003

  46. [46]

    M. I. Freidlin and A. D. Wentzell, Random perturbations, inRandom perturbations of dynamical systems(Springer,

  47. [47]

    Touchette, The large deviation approach to statistical mechanics, Physics Reports478, 1 (2009)

    H. Touchette, The large deviation approach to statistical mechanics, Physics Reports478, 1 (2009)

    2009

  48. [48]

    Vulpiani, F

    A. Vulpiani, F. Cecconi, M. Cencini, A. Puglisi, and D. Vergni, Large deviations in physics, The Legacy of the Law of Large Numbers (Berlin: Springer) 10.1007/978- 3-642-54251-0 (2014)

    doi:10.1007/978- 2014

  49. [49]

    T. M. Liggett, Coexistence in threshold voter models, The Annals of Probability , 764 (1994)

    1994

  50. [50]

    Ben-Naim, L

    E. Ben-Naim, L. Frachebourg, and P. L. Krapivsky, Coarsening and persistence in the voter model, Physical Review E53, 3078 (1996)

    1996

  51. [51]

    Castellano, M

    C. Castellano, M. A. Mu˜ noz, and R. Pastor-Satorras, Nonlinear q-voter model, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics80, 041129 (2009)

    2009

  52. [52]

    Schweitzer and L

    F. Schweitzer and L. Behera, Nonlinear voter models: the transition from invasion to coexistence, The European Physical Journal B67, 301 (2009)

    2009

  53. [53]

    L. C. F. Latoski, W. Dantas, and J. J. Arenzon, Curvature-driven growth and interfacial noise in the voter model with self-induced zealots, Physical Review E106, 014121 (2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    Floris, A

    E. Floris, A. Piras, F. S. Pezzicoli, M. Zamparo, L. Dall’Asta, and A. Gamba, Phase separation and crit- ical size in molecular sorting, Phys. Rev. E106, 044412 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    C. A. Weber, D. Zwicker, F. J¨ ulicher, and C. F. Lee, Physics of active emulsions, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 064601 (2019)

    2019

  56. [56]

    J. E. Ferrell Jr and E. M. Machleder, The biochemical basis of an all-or-none cell fate switch in xenopus oocytes, Science280, 895 (1998)

    1998

  57. [57]

    Nicodemi and A

    M. Nicodemi and A. Prisco, Thermodynamic pathways to genome spatial organization in the cell nucleus, Bio- physical journal96, 2168 (2009)

    2009

  58. [58]

    Z. Feng, X. Chen, X. Wu, and M. Zhang, Formation of biological condensates via phase separation: Characteris- tics, analytical methods, and physiological implications, Journal of Biological Chemistry294, 14823 (2019)

    2019

  59. [59]

    Matsuoka, T

    S. Matsuoka, T. Shibata, and M. Ueda, Asymmetric PTEN distribution regulated by spatial heterogeneity in membrane-binding state transitions, PLoS Computa- tional Biology9, e1002862 (2013)

    2013

  60. [60]

    K. J. Wiese, Coherent-state path integral versus coarse- grained effective stochastic equation of motion: From re- action diffusion to stochastic sandpiles, Physical Review E93, 042117 (2016)

    2016

  61. [61]

    D. T. Gillespie, Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions, The journal of physical chemistry81, 2340 (1977)

    1977

  62. [62]

    Andreghetti, A

    D. Andreghetti, A. Braunstein, L. Dall’Asta, and A. Gamba, MembraneRD,https://github.com/ damiano-andreghetti/MembraneRD(2025)

    2025

  63. [63]

    V. H. Thanh, R. Zunino, and C. Priami, Efficient constant-time complexity algorithm for stochastic sim- ulation of large reaction networks, IEEE/ACM transac- tions on computational biology and bioinformatics14, 657 (2016)

    2016