Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Single-molecule biophysics

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Single-molecule biophysics has grown into a source of new physics, with biomolecular droplet sizes that standard theory does not predict.

desk verdict A competent survey of single-molecule biophysics, but the 'new physics' conclusion rests on an unstated theoretical baseline and should be reframed as a hypothesis. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19829 v1 pith:VR2VU45N submitted 2025-08-27 physics.bio-ph q-bio.BM

Mark C Leake This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phq-bio.BM
keywords single-moleculebiophysicssuper-resolutionmicroscopyopticaltweezersmagneticatomicforceliquid-liquidphaseseparationmoleculardynamicssimulationcorrelative
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

This review argues that single-molecule biophysics has matured beyond its origins in structural biology and physiology: it can now detect, track, and manipulate individual biomolecules inside living cells, revealing the spread of molecular states that ensemble averages hide. The author's central claim is that these methods do more than apply known physics; they are generating new physics inspired by biology. The load-bearing example is biomolecular liquid-liquid phase separation, where droplets inside cells settle at preferred sizes that conventional polymer-mixture theory does not predict. If that observation holds, it would show that cross-scale feedback between molecular forces and macroscopic droplet properties is a genuine source of new physical rules. The review names the resulting programme 'systems biophysics'—a physics of emergence inspired by biology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single molecule made observable: nanometre localization of individual fluorescent molecules by centroid fitting, and piconewton manipulation by optical and magnetic tweezers and atomic force microscopy. These turn molecular populations into distributions over states rather than averages. For the new-physics claim, the key mechanism is biomolecular liquid-liquid phase separation, whose steady-state droplet-size preference is the unexplained observation; the proposed explanation is cross-scale feedback from molecular interaction forces to collective properties like viscosity and surface tension. The review names the resulting programme 'systems biophysics'—a phys

What would settle it

Run standard polymer-mixture theory—including finite system size, interfacial tension, and kinetic arrest—on the same protein/RNA systems and compare the predicted steady-state droplet-size distribution with the measured one. If the theory reproduces the observed preference for a range of droplet diameters, the claim that these lengths were unpredicted is falsified. Independent reproduction of the size-preference measurements in another laboratory would also be decisive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that single-molecule biophysics has matured into a discipline that can measure and manipulate individual biomolecules inside functioning cells, and that this capability is now turning biology into a source of new physics. The specific evidence is biomolecular liquid-liquid phase separation: droplets of proteins and RNA form inside cells, and in steady state they show a preference for a range of droplet diameters. The author states that existing theory, based on traditional polymer mixture physics, predicts such phase transitions should run to completion and does not predict these preferred length scales. He attributes the discrepancy to cross-scale

Load-bearing premise

The new-physics conclusion depends on the assumption that the droplet-size preferences reported in the two cited phase-separation studies are real, reproducible, and genuinely outside what existing polymer mixture theory predicts; the review does not state that theory, derive its predicted size distribution, or provide independent confirmation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, single-molecule measurements become a direct experimental check on statistical-thermodynamics theories at the molecular scale, as already seen with the work relation linking free-energy differences to irreversible work along trajectories.
  • Biomolecular condensates cannot be treated as simple polymer mixtures; their size distributions carry physical information that standard mixture theory misses.
  • The cross-scale feedback idea implies that tuning molecular interaction forces can set mesoscale droplet size, offering a design rule for biomaterials.
  • Correlative tools that combine orthogonal data streams will be the route to single-molecule precision inside physiologically relevant, multi-scale contexts.
  • The field's low-throughput character remains the main barrier to statistical power and clinical translation, motivating the high-throughput and lab-on-a-chip directions the review describes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My reading: the 'unpredicted' droplet sizes are not yet a demonstrated failure of polymer theory, because the review does not state the theory's quantitative predictions or compare them with the measured size distributions; a head-to-head comparison with finite-size, interfacial-tension and kinetic-arrest versions of mixture theory would settle the point.
  • I would extend the claim to other biomolecular assemblies: if cross-scale feedback sets droplet size, the same single-molecule toolkit should find analogous preferred length scales in transcription-factor clusters and other mesoscale biomolecular aggregates.
  • A testable design consequence the author leaves implicit is that mutations or post-translational modifications that change electrostatic or van der Waals interactions should shift the preferred droplet diameter in a predictable way; this is checkable by imaging point mutants in live cells.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This single-author review surveys the field of single-molecule biophysics: its historical development, detection and visualization methods (super-resolution fluorescence, FRET, EM, nanopore conductance), manipulation tools (optical, magnetic, acoustic tweezers, AFM, electrorotation), correlative approaches, and future challenges. The stated thesis is that single-molecule biophysics has moved beyond applying established tools and is now generating 'new physics inspired by biology', with biomolecular liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) offered as the principal example of a phenomenon whose observed length-scale preferences are said to be unpredicted by existing polymer mixture theory.

Significance. If its central thesis were rigorously supported, the review would be a valuable synthesis of an established experimental field and a provocative statement of its future direction. The descriptive portions are broadly reliable: the localization-precision discussion, the Langevin-equation treatment, the optical-trap power spectrum, and the magnetic force/torque equations are standard and, as far as they go, correctly presented. The review also gives useful attention to practical limitations and artefacts, especially in §4.2.2. However, the 'new physics' conclusion rests almost entirely on a small number of asserted examples, and the strongest example (LLPS) is not backed by a stated theoretical baseline or a quantitative comparison. The manuscript is therefore better as a methods survey than as an evidence-based argument for new physics.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5 (Conclusions, LLPS paragraph)] The central claim that LLPS reveals length-scale preferences 'not predicted by existing theory' is underdetermined. The text states only that 'traditional theory predicts that such phase transitions ultimately go to completion' and then cites refs 31 and 32, both from the author's own group. It never specifies the model, derives the predicted droplet-size distribution, or quantitatively compares theory with the cited data. This matters because standard finite-system Flory-Huggins/Cahn-Hilliard treatments, conserved-order-parameter coarsening, and active-process extensions can all produce finite-size droplet preferences in or out of equilibrium. As written, the reader cannot verify that refs 31 and 32 demonstrate a genuine discrepancy with polymer theory. Please state the theoretical baseline and show the quantitative discrepancy, or downgrade the claim to an open hypothesis.
  2. [§5 (Conclusions, Jarzynski example)] The Jarzynski-example claim is similarly asserted rather than demonstrated. The text says single-molecule tools revealed a free-energy landscape 'more granular than that predicted', citing ref 30. But the Jarzynski equality is an exact relation and does not by itself predict a smooth or simple landscape. The review does not identify which theory's prediction is being contradicted, nor what 'granular' means quantitatively. This is not a fatal flaw if the sentence is meant as an illustrative claim, but in its current form it overstates what the cited review establishes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1.5, Eq. (1)] The localization-precision formula is ambiguous as typeset: the fraction structure of the first term is unclear, and the second term should be checked against the standard Thompson formula 8π s^4 b^2/(a^2 N^2). The printed '4√π s^3 b^2 / a N^2' appears dimensionally inconsistent.
  2. [§2.2.8] The subsection 'Electron microscopy advances' is numbered 2.2.8, but it appears within the electrical-conductance section 2.2 and after 2.1.7. Renumber it (e.g., 2.1.8 or a separate section) to restore the hierarchy.
  3. [§3.2.2] The phrase 'denoted Cominatorial Optical' is truncated; presumably 'COMBI-Tweez' or 'Combinatorial Optical and Magnetic BIomolecule TWEEZers' is intended (see the glossary).
  4. [Glossary] BSE is defined as 'Bovine serum albumin', but in Fig. 10C it denotes back-scattered electrons. The glossary definition should match its use in the text.
  5. [§4.2.4] Two subsections are labelled 4.2.4 ('Challenges of an increasingly non-specialist userbase' and 'Single-molecule biophysics in populations of cells'). Renumber to avoid confusion.
  6. [Various] Typos and minor wording issues: 'precent' for 'present' (§2.1.1), 'Carton' for 'Cartoon' (Fig. 6 caption), and 'shot noise' described as thermal noise of electrons (§1.5, QPD discussion). These do not affect the technical content but should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

LLPS 'new physics' claim rests on self-cited references and a stipulative definition; otherwise the review is a self-contained survey.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 5 (Conclusions), paragraph 2]
    "However, recent insights from biomolecular liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS), driven in part through single-molecule biophysics approaches, reveal preferences for length scales within the transitions which have not been predicted by existing theory that primarily is based on traditional polymer physics mixture theory (31,32)."

    The review's only concrete evidence for its headline conclusion that single-molecule biophysics is generating 'new physics' is the assertion that LLPS droplet-size preferences are unpredicted by existing polymer mixture theory. That assertion is supported exclusively by refs 31 and 32, both primary papers co-authored by the present author. The review does not state what traditional polymer theory predicts, does not derive the predicted droplet-size distribution, and cites no independent theoretical treatment. The claimed discrepancy—and therefore the 'new physics' conclusion—reduces to the author's own group's interpretation rather than to a theory baseline the reader can check.

  2. self definitional [Section 5 (Conclusions), final paragraph]
    "If pedantic, one might argue that such phenomena are not “new” physics, however, I am inclined to suggest that this reasoning is largely erroneous semantics; new “physical rules” which emerge due to feedback of physical outputs across multiple scales in a system does constitute a new type of physics."

    The objection that LLPS length-scale preferences are not new physics is rebutted by stipulative definition: 'new physical rules' arising from cross-scale feedback are declared to constitute a new type of physics. The paper then applies this definition to the LLPS case, so the conclusion that this is 'new physics' is true by definition rather than by derivation from an independent criterion. This is a semantic move, secondary to the self-citation issue, but it makes the headline claim partly self-confirming.

full rationale

This is a review/perspective, not a derivation chain, so most of the paper is necessarily self-contained: the tool descriptions, historical timeline, and equations (localization precision, Langevin/Lorentzian trap calibration, optical force, magnetic force) are standard and carry their own citations. The circularity risk is concentrated in Section 5. The paper's headline 'new physics' conclusion points to LLPS length-scale preferences as not predicted by existing polymer mixture theory, but the only cited support is two papers co-authored by the author (refs 31 and 32). The review does not articulate the theory baseline, derive the predicted distribution, or cite independent theoretical work, so the claimed gap is asserted via self-citation rather than demonstrated. The final paragraph then makes the 'new physics' label true by stipulative definition. I do not count the many other self-citations (e.g., Slimfield, PySTACHIO, COMBI-Tweez) as circular because they are tool-development references and not load-bearing for the central claim. Because the broad survey and most technical content are independent, the score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. It proposes the label 'systems biophysics' for a research direction, but that is a descriptive term, not an invented entity requiring independent empirical evidence.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Ensemble-average measurements are inadequate for capturing biomolecular heterogeneity because molecular machinery is not synchronized in space or time.
    Stated in Section 1.2 as the motivation for single-molecule biophysics. This is a standard view in the field, not proven within the paper, but it underpins the entire review.
  • domain assumption The historical and technical attributions in the review are accurate (e.g., first single biomolecule images by Hall in 1956, first detection by Rotman in 1961).
    The review relies on the correctness of its historical claims and cited papers; no independent verification is provided, and some attributions are presented without primary source detail.
  • ad hoc to paper The two self-cited studies (refs 31, 32) correctly show that biomolecular liquid-liquid phase separation exhibits preferred droplet sizes not predicted by existing polymer theory.
    This is the load-bearing premise for the 'new physics' claim in Section 5. The review does not state or derive the theory it claims fails, nor does it cite independent laboratories that have replicated the finding.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single-molecule biophysics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VR2VU45N

@misc{pith2026250819829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single-molecule biophysics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VR2VU45N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19829}
}
read the original abstract

Biological molecules, like all active matter, use free energy to generate force and motion which drive them out of thermal equilibrium, and undergo inherent dynamic interconversion between metastable free energy states separated by levels barely higher than stochastic thermal energy fluctuations. Here, we explore the founding and emerging approaches of the field of single-molecule biophysics which, unlike traditional ensemble average approaches, enable the detection and manipulation of individual molecules and facilitate exploration of biomolecular heterogeneity and its impact on transitional molecular kinetics and underpinning molecular interactions. We discuss the ground-breaking technological innovations which scratch far beyond the surface into open questions of real physiology, that correlate orthogonal data types and interplay empirical measurement with theoretical and computational insights, many of which are enabling artificial matter to be designed inspired by biological systems. And finally, we examine how these insights are helping to develop new physics framed around biology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19829 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Assays for molecular motor single-molecule force spectroscopy experiments. A. Optical tweezers position a kinesin-coated microbead onto a microtubule, applying a controllable lateral force. B. Two possible models of kinesin motion during its “power stroke” on a microtubule during which force is generated. Top: stroke-release model: kinesin detaches from microtubule and diffuses back later; bottom: hand-over-hand mod… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Schematic of MT configurations for force and torque generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Schematics of multiplexed and hybrid assays using magnetic tweezers. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_9.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rapid rotation of micron and submicron dielectric particles measured using optical tweezers

    Rowe AD, Leake MC, Morgan H, Berry RM. Rapid rotation of micron and submicron dielectric particles measured using optical tweezers. J Mod Opt. 2003;50(10)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Direct observation of steps in rotation of the bacterial flagellar motor

    Sowa Y, Rowe AD, Leake MC, Yakushi T, Homma M, Ishijima A, et al. Direct observation of steps in rotation of the bacterial flagellar motor. Nature. 2005 Oct;437(7060):916–9

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    The maximum number of torque-generating units in the flagellar motor of Escherichia coli is at least 11

    Reid SW, Leake MC, Chandler JHJ, Lo CJ, Armitage JP, Berry RM. The maximum number of torque-generating units in the flagellar motor of Escherichia coli is at least 11. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 23;103(21):8066–71

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Measurement of activity of single molecules of beta-D-galactosidase

    Rotman B. Measurement of activity of single molecules of beta-D-galactosidase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1961 Dec;47:1981–91

    work page 1961

  5. [5]

    From Animaculum to single molecules: 300 years of the light microscope

    Wollman AJM, Nudd R, Hedlund EG, Leake MC. From Animaculum to single molecules: 300 years of the light microscope. Open Biol. 2015 Apr;5(4):150019– 150019

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Millisecond timescale slimfield imaging and automated quantification of single fluorescent protein molecules for use in probing complex biological processes

    Plank M, Wadhams GH, Leake MC. Millisecond timescale slimfield imaging and automated quantification of single fluorescent protein molecules for use in probing complex biological processes. Integr Biol (Camb). 2009 Oct;1(10):602– 12

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    SlimVar: rapid in vivo single- molecule tracking of chromatin regulators in plants

    Payne-Dwyer AL, Jang GJ, Dean C, Leake MC. SlimVar: rapid in vivo single- molecule tracking of chromatin regulators in plants. bioRxiv [Internet]. 2024 May 21 [cited 2024 Dec 8];2024.05.17.594710. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.17.594710v1

    work page doi:10.1101/2024.05.17.594710v1 2024

  8. [8]

    The hinge-bending mode in lysozyme

    McCammon JA, Gelin BR, Karplus M, Wolynes PG. The hinge-bending mode in lysozyme. Nature. 1976 Jul;262(5566):325–6

    work page 1976

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold

    Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, Green T, Figurnov M, Ronneberger O, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 2021 596:7873 [Internet]. 2021 Jul 15 [cited 2025 Jul 14];596(7873):583–9. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2

    2021

  2. [10]

    Variable stoichiometry of the TatA component of the twin-arginine protein transport system observed by in vivo single-molecule imaging

    Leake MC, Greene NP, Godun RM, Granjon T, Buchanan G, Chen S, et al. Variable stoichiometry of the TatA component of the twin-arginine protein transport system observed by in vivo single-molecule imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Oct;105(40):15376–81

    2008

  3. [11]

    Signal-dependent turnover of the bacterial flagellar switch protein FliM

    Delalez NJ, Wadhams GH, Rosser G, Xue Q, Brown MT, Dobbie IM, et al. Signal-dependent turnover of the bacterial flagellar switch protein FliM. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jun;107(25):11347–51

    2010

  4. [12]

    Stoichiometry and turnover in single, functioning membrane protein complexes

    Leake MC, Chandler JH, Wadhams GH, Bai F, Berry RM, Armitage JP. Stoichiometry and turnover in single, functioning membrane protein complexes. Nature. 2006 Sep 21;443(7109):355–8

    2006

  5. [13]

    Stoichiometry and architecture of active DNA replication machinery in Escherichia coli

    Reyes-Lamothe R, Sherratt DJ, Leake MC. Stoichiometry and architecture of active DNA replication machinery in Escherichia coli. Science. 2010 Apr 23;328(5977):498–501

    2010

  6. [14]

    Frequent exchange of the DNA polymerase during bacterial chromosome replication

    Beattie TR, Kapadia N, Nicolas E, Uphoff S, Wollman AJ, Leake MC, et al. Frequent exchange of the DNA polymerase during bacterial chromosome replication. Elife. 2017 Mar 31;6:e21763

    2017

  7. [15]

    Transcription factor clusters regulate genes in eukaryotic cells

    Wollman A, Shashkova S, Hedlund E, Friemann R, Hohmann S, Leake MC. Transcription factor clusters regulate genes in eukaryotic cells. 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Single-molecule fluorescence microscopy review: shedding new light on old problems

    Shashkova S, Leake MC. Single-molecule fluorescence microscopy review: shedding new light on old problems. Biosci Rep. 2017 Aug 31;37(4):BSR20170031

    2017

  9. [17]

    The Yeast Mig1 Transcriptional Repressor Is Dephosphorylated By Glucose-Dependent And Independent Mechanisms

    Shashkova S, Wollman A, Leake MC, Hohmann S. The Yeast Mig1 Transcriptional Repressor Is Dephosphorylated By Glucose-Dependent And Independent Mechanisms. 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    In vivo architecture and action of bacterial structural maintenance of chromosome proteins

    Badrinarayanan A, Reyes-Lamothe R, Uphoff S, Leake MC, Sherratt DJ. In vivo architecture and action of bacterial structural maintenance of chromosome proteins. Science. 2012 Oct;338(6106):528–31

    2012

  11. [19]

    Wollman AJM, Leake MC. Millisecond single-molecule localization microscopy combined with convolution analysis and automated image segmentation to determine protein concentrations in complexly structured, functional cells, one cell at a time. Faraday Discuss. 2015 Jan;184:401–24

    2015

  12. [20]

    Single-molecule kinetics and super-resolution microscopy by fluorescence imaging of transient binding on DNA origami

    Jungmann R, Steinhauer C, Scheible M, Kuzyk A, Tinnefeld P, Simmel FC. Single-molecule kinetics and super-resolution microscopy by fluorescence imaging of transient binding on DNA origami. Nano Lett [Internet]. 2010 Nov 10 [cited 2025 Jul 18];10(11):4756–61. Available from: ht...

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    Shepherd JW, Higgins EJ, Wollman AJM, Leake MC. PySTACHIO: Python Single-molecule TrAcking stoiCHiometry Intensity and simulatiOn, a flexible, extensible, beginner-friendly and optimized program for analysis of single- molecule microscopy data. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2021...

    2021

  14. [22]

    The elasticity of single kettin molecules using a two-bead laser-tweezers assay

    Leake MC, Wilson D, Bullard B, Simmons RM. The elasticity of single kettin molecules using a two-bead laser-tweezers assay. FEBS Lett. 2003 Jan 30;535(1– 3):55–60

    2003

  15. [23]

    The elasticity of single titin molecules using a two-bead optical tweezers assay

    Leake MC, Wilson D, Gautel M, Simmons RM. The elasticity of single titin molecules using a two-bead optical tweezers assay. Biophys J. 2004 Aug;87(2):1112–35

    2004

  16. [24]

    Correlating fluorescence microscopy, optical and magnetic tweezers to study single chiral biopolymers such as DNA

    Shepherd JW, Guilbaud S, Zhou Z, Howard JAL, Burman M, Schaefer C, et al. Correlating fluorescence microscopy, optical and magnetic tweezers to study single chiral biopolymers such as DNA. Nature Communications 2024 15:1 [Internet]. 2024 Mar 29 [cited 2024 Dec 8];15(1):1–15. A...

    2024

  17. [25]

    doughnuts

    Chmyrov A, Keller J, Grotjohann T, Ratz M, D’Este E, Jakobs S, et al. Nanoscopy with more than 100,000 “doughnuts.” Nat Methods. 2013 Jul;10(8):737–40

    2013

  18. [26]

    Force Spectroscopy in Studying Infection

    Zhou Z, Leake MC. Force Spectroscopy in Studying Infection. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;915:307–27

    2016

  19. [27]

    Designing a single-molecule biophysics tool for characterizing DNA damage for techniques that kill infectious pathogens through DNA damage effects

    Miller H, Wollman AJM, Leake MC. Designing a single-molecule biophysics tool for characterizing DNA damage for techniques that kill infectious pathogens through DNA damage effects. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;915:115–27

    2016

  20. [28]

    Single-molecule observation of DNA replication repair pathways in E

    Wollman AJM, Syeda AH, McGlynn P, Leake MC. Single-molecule observation of DNA replication repair pathways in E. coli. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;915:5– 16

    2016

  21. [29]

    Biophysics of Infection

    Leake MC. Biophysics of Infection. Preface. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;915:v

    2016

  22. [30]

    Reconstructing Folding Energy Landscapes by Single- Molecule Force Spectroscopy

    Woodside MT, Block SM. Reconstructing Folding Energy Landscapes by Single- Molecule Force Spectroscopy. Annu Rev Biophys [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2025 Jul 30];43(1):19. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4609573/

    2014

  23. [31]

    Membraneless organelles formed by liquid-liquid phase separation increase bacterial fitness

    Jin X, Lee JE, Schaefer C, Luo X, Wollman AJM, Payne-Dwyer AL, et al. Membraneless organelles formed by liquid-liquid phase separation increase bacterial fitness. Sci Adv [Internet]. 2021 Oct 22 [cited 2021 Nov 12];7(43). Available from: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126...

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Aggresomes protect mRNA under stress in Escherichia coli

    Pei L, Xian Y, Yan X, Schaefer C, Syeda AH, Howard JAL, et al. Aggresomes protect mRNA under stress in Escherichia coli. Nature Microbiology 2025 [Internet]. 2025 Aug 19 [cited 2025 Aug 27];1–15. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-025-02086-5

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.