Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

A self-organised liquid reaction container for cellular memory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A liquid droplet of HP1 proteins, assembled by polymer-assisted condensation around heterochromatin, can restore epigenetic marks diluted by cell division and preserve the parental domain pattern for 50 generations.

desk verdict A serious mechanism paper whose 50-generation robustness claim is honestly under-supported by the reported statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15394 v2 pith:W4MQZHAH submitted 2024-12-19 physics.bio-ph

Sukanta Mukherjee , Enrico Skoruppa , Holger Merlitz , Jens-Uwe Sommer , Helmut Schiessel This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords epigeneticinheritanceheterochromatinH3K9me3HP1polymer-assistedcondensationbiomolecularcondensatephaseseparationcellularmemory
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 paper tries to establish that a liquid droplet, formed when heterochromatin recruits HP1 proteins through polymer-assisted condensation, can serve as a self-organised reaction chamber that restores the epigenetic marks diluted by every round of DNA duplication. The authors simulate a coarse-grained model chromosome carrying H3K9me3 marks and show that the droplet reforms after each division, the droplet surface limits methylation to the correct domains, and the parental block pattern survives 50 in silico cell generations. If the scenario is right, it would explain how cell identity is preserved over a lifetime despite massive dilution of marks and a constantly moving chromosome, and it would give a physical identity to the 'boundary elements' that had been postulated to constrain heterochromatin spreading.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the polymer-assisted condensation (PAC) droplet: a liquid condensate of HP1 proteins that forms around heterochromatic stretches of the chromosome even though HP1 alone is below its phase-separation concentration, because the polymer's attraction to the protein traps HP1 and lowers the condensation threshold. The analytic PAC result that the condensate volume is essentially independent of the protein-polymer attraction strength (the relation $V_{\mathrm{PAC}}\simeq N|\mu|^{-1/2}(\delta_0(1-\delta_0))^{1/2}$) gives the robustness that lets the droplet survive each division's halving of marks. The second piece is the methylation rate law $p_m = p_0^m \exp(-n\epsilon_m)$, which makes the probability that an unmarked nucleosome becomes methylated grow exponentially with the local number of HP1 partners $n$; through the selectivity parameter $\Lambda$ this creates a time-scale separation between filling defects inside heterochromatin and growing into euchromatin. The droplet surface, where HP1 concentration drops sharply, is proposed as the physical realization of the elusive boundary elements.

What would settle it

Measure the methylation rate of unmarked nucleosomes as a function of local HP1 density in an in vitro system with nucleosomes, HP1, and SUV39H1: if the rate does not rise steeply (exponentially) with HP1 occupancy, or if the ratio of reaction rates between HP1-rich and HP1-poor nucleosomes is far below the selectivity the model needs, the mechanism collapses. A simulation with the exponential law replaced by a linear dependence on HP1 density should show heterochromatin encroaching into euchromatin before internal defects are healed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that epigenetic memory can be carried entirely by the diluted sequence of marks and read out through a condensate: polymer-assisted condensation of HP1 around the marked chromatin forms a liquid droplet whose sharp surface is the boundary element previously assumed to exist, and whose interior provides a local environment where methylases act preferentially. Because the droplet volume is nearly independent of the strength of polymer-protein attraction, halving the number of marks at each division does not destroy the reaction vessel, and methylation rates that grow exponentially with local HP1 density restore the parent sequence before heterochromatin can spread into euchromatin. Simulations demonstrate restoration for 50 consecutive generations, including healing of multi-nucleosome defects, and show that the process survives complete interruption and restart, consistent with the slow remethylation observed experimentally.

Load-bearing premise

The whole demonstration assumes that a nucleosome's methylation probability rises exponentially with the number of nearby HP1 molecules, with parameters tuned so that defect-edge nucleosomes methylate tens to hundreds of times faster than border nucleosomes—if real methylases are not this strongly enriched in HP1 condensates, the required separation of timescales disappears and restoration fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The droplet surface gives a physical identity to heterochromatin boundary elements, replacing a postulate with a self-assembled interface that forms and reforms each generation.
  • Epigenetic memory resides in the sequence of marks, not in chromosome conformation, so the restoration process can be interrupted by mitosis and restarted after refolding—matching the observed loss of compartments during cell division.
  • The mechanism is robust to parameter variation: it works across a broad range of HP1 concentration, attraction strengths, and methylation-law parameters, without the fine-tuning that sinks the frozen-conformation models.
  • Because the droplet volume does not depend on the polymer-protein attraction strength, the halving of marks at each division does not destroy the reaction chamber, and slow remethylation (about 20 hours) is naturally accommodated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the PAC droplet is the carrier of memory, then any epigenetic mark whose reader protein cannot itself phase-separate or be recruited into such a condensate would have to be inherited by a different mechanism; this predicts a sharp division between marks that are condensate-compatible and those that require another strategy.
  • The model suggests that the effective position of a heterochromatin boundary is set by the condensate interface rather than by DNA sequence elements, implying that perturbing HP1 concentration or valency should move domain boundaries—an experimental handle that 1D spreading models do not provide.
  • The observed tolerance for multi-nucleosome defects implies that a few lost marks do not doom a domain; this suggests that tracking small, transient gaps in H3K9me3 over successive divisions in live cells could serve as a direct test of the healing behaviour seen in the simulations.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a physical mechanism for epigenetic memory in which HP1 proteins form a liquid condensate via polymer-assisted condensation (PAC), and this condensate acts as a reaction chamber that restores H3K9me3 marks diluted during cell division. The authors use molecular dynamics simulations of a coarse-grained model chromosome with a block-like heterochromatin/euchromatin sequence, coupled to Monte Carlo methylation events whose probability depends exponentially on local HP1 density. They report that restoration works within a single cell generation (averaged over 100 runs) and that block-like domains remain recognizable across 50 simulated cell generations in a small number of trajectories, with robustness claimed over a parameter range. The manuscript emphasizes that the mechanism is distinct from earlier frozen-conformation models and that the droplet surface provides a physical boundary element.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a conceptually important contribution: it offers a mechanism for epigenetic memory that does not rely on frozen chromosome conformations and that connects phase-separation physics to epigenetic restoration. The paper has several strengths: the model is described in detail, the single-generation statistics are based on 100 independent runs, the PAC phase diagram and the volume-independence prediction of Eq. (3) are taken from a prior peer-reviewed study, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the limited multi-generation statistics and show failure examples. The work also makes falsifiable predictions, e.g., the independence of condensate volume from the polymer–protein interaction strength. However, the headline claim of robust stabilization over many cell generations is not backed by quantitative success rates, and the steep HP1-dependent methylation rate law is tuned rather than derived or measured, so the significance is currently at the level of a plausible proof of concept rather than a demonstrated general result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Robustness of restoration scenario; Extended Data Fig. 5; Discussion] The central claim that the mechanism 'is robust and stabilizes the heterochromatin domains over many cell generations' (abstract) is not supported by the reported evidence. In the 'Robustness of restoration scenario' section the authors state: 'we were only able to perform a small number of 50-generation runs... we cannot comment on the success rate of our mechanism to re-establish the starting sequence due to lack of statistics.' Extended Data Fig. 5 explicitly shows two failures, one with tC=500 where the leftmost heterochromatin domain almost disappeared and one with tC=800 where a new domain formed and merged two domains. With no success rate, no confidence interval, and no pre-registered criterion for 'stabilization,' the 50-generation robustness claim is a conjecture rather than a demonstrated result. The favorable trajectory in Fig. 6 uses tC=600, which is chosen near the per-generation mismatch minimum in Fig. 5(b), so it may not be representative. This issue is load-bearing because the abstract and discussion present the multi-generation stability as the main result.
  2. [Restoration of epigenetic marks in one cell generation; Eq. (4)] The methylation rate law pm = p0_m exp(-n epsilon_m) in Eq. (4) is introduced with p0_m and epsilon_m tuned via the selectivity Lambda (Fig. 4(b)) to achieve a separation of time scales between defect-edge and euchromatin-border nucleosomes. The authors acknowledge that the functional form is a choice and describe it as a threshold function, but the parameters are load-bearing: the entire demonstration of faithful restoration depends on the steep dependence of methylation probability on local HP1 count. If real methylases do not partition this steeply into HP1 condensates, the separation of time scales collapses and restoration would fail. The paper would be strengthened by a sensitivity analysis that varies the functional form (e.g., a Hill function or a linear dependence) and by a discussion of biological evidence for such a steep HP1-concentration dependence, rather than only varying p0_m and epsilon_m within a fixed exponential form.
  3. [Discussion; Abstract] The abstract's claim that the mechanism 'is robust' and the Discussion's statement that 'we have proposed the first physically plausible scenario for cellular memory' go beyond what the presented data can establish. The multi-generation evidence consists of a few trajectories with explicit failure examples and no success rate, and the model has not been compared quantitatively with the cited experimental timescales (e.g., the 20-hour restoration time) or with measured HP1 concentrations and methylation kinetics. The authors should either add sufficient statistics to support the robustness claim or substantially qualify the claims, for example by describing the result as a proof of concept that is plausible but not yet statistically demonstrated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3(a) caption] The value 'cb = 035' should read 'cb = 0.035'.
  2. [Eq. (4) and parameter choice] The sign convention in Eq. (4) is confusing: the chosen parameter epsilon_m = -1.4 makes the exponent positive for increasing n, but the text describes an 'exponential relationship' without specifying the sign; clarifying that a negative epsilon_m corresponds to a steeply increasing probability would avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Methods, Selectivity] In the definition around Eq. (9), the text says 'w_x(n) is the histone number distribution around nucleosome x' but it should presumably read 'HP1 number distribution'; the current phrase is likely a typo.
  4. [Fig. 5(b) and Fig. 7] The y-axes are described in the text as percentage mismatch but the axes in the figures are not labeled; adding units would improve readability.
  5. [Discussion] The phrase 'lets us conclude' in the description of Fig. 6 is stronger than appropriate for a single trajectory; consider using 'suggests' or 'indicates' to match the statistical strength of the evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PAC theory is cited with independent validation, and the parameter choices are openly scanned rather than fitted to the claimed outcome.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a computational demonstration, not a derivation whose output is built into its inputs. The PAC formalism (Eqs. 1-3) is taken from the authors' own Ref. [31], but that prior work contains its own simulations and parameter-free Landau theory, and the present paper independently simulates condensate formation for its block-copolymer system in Fig. 3(a)-(c), so the citation is not the only support. The methylation parameters p0_m and eps_m (Eq. 4) are tuned using the explicitly defined selectivity Lambda (Eq. 9), but this is a transparent design choice, not a fit to the multi-generation outcome; the robustness section scans eps_m, pb, and tC over wide ranges, and the authors report the resulting parameter dependence. The choice of tC=600 as the per-generation mismatch minimum (Fig. 5b) is acknowledged, and Extended Data Fig. 4 and 5 show both successful and failing trajectories, with the text explicitly stating that no success rate can be quoted 'due to lack of statistics'. Those are evidentiary limitations that weaken the headline robustness claim, but they do not make the result equivalent to its inputs by construction. No equation is secretly reused as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The central machinery relies on the authors' prior PAC theory (self-cited Ref [31]) and on a tuned methylation rate law (Eq. 4). The free parameters are chosen to operate in the PAC region and to achieve a strong selectivity between defect-edge and euchromatin-border nucleosomes; the cell cycle time is selected at the mismatch minimum.

free parameters (7)
  • base methylation probability p0_m = 1e-5
    Chosen from selectivity map Lambda in Fig. 4(b); sets overall methylation attempt success rate; not measured experimentally.
  • HP1-concentration exponent epsilon_m = -1.4
    Chosen with p0_m to give separation of timescales (selectivity Lambda 20-200); controls exponential enhancement of methylation in HP1-rich regions.
  • cell cycle time tC = 600 MC sweeps
    Chosen as approximate mismatch minimum in Fig. 5(b); the paper shows sensitivity to tC (500-800) with failure cases at extremes (Extended Data Fig. 5).
  • distribution bias pb = 0.4
    Controls randomness of nucleosome segregation; pb=0.4 gives about 10% defects of length 2; more random distributions slow down restoration (Fig. 7).
  • HP1 self-attraction chi_S = 1.1
    Set above critical point 0.9 from Ref [36]; places system in PAC regime.
  • HP1-heterochromatin attraction epsilon_S = 2.0 in proof of concept
    Chosen inside PAC region of phase diagram from Ref [31]; robustness scanned between 1.5 and 2.5 (Extended Data Fig. 1).
  • bulk HP1 volume fraction cb = 0.048
    Chosen below spontaneous phase separation threshold (about 0.0575 from Ref [31]) but inside PAC region.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flory-Huggins mean-field free energy (Eq. 1) with a Landau approximation describes the PAC transition quantitatively.
    Used to derive PAC threshold Eq. 2 and volume Eq. 3; relies on mean-field theory from Ref [31] by the same authors; not independently validated here.
  • domain assumption HP1 molecules self-attract and phase separate above a critical concentration.
    Supported by in-vitro refs [33,34]; assumed to hold in the nuclear environment.
  • domain assumption HP1 binds specifically to H3K9me3-marked nucleosomes via its chromodomain.
    Standard experimental result (refs [5,6,9]); basis for polymer-protein attraction.
  • ad hoc to paper Methylation rate depends on local HP1 concentration through the exponential law of Eq. 4.
    Phenomenological choice; authors state the specific functional form is not crucial as long as it is steep enough; parameters are fitted via selectivity.
  • domain assumption Nucleosomes are distributed between daughter strands with bias pb and then diluted by half.
    Based on refs [4,40]; the bias parameter pb is scanned as a robustness variable.
  • domain assumption Only the sequence of marks, not the 3D conformation, stores epigenetic memory.
    Assumed based on the dynamics of chromatin and its disruption in mitosis; not directly tested in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A self-organised liquid reaction container for cellular memory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4MQZHAH

@misc{pith2026241215394,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A self-organised liquid reaction container for cellular memory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4MQZHAH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15394}
}
read the original abstract

Epigenetic inheritance during cell division is essential for preserving cell identity by stabilizing the overall chromatin organisation. Heterochromatin,the condensed and transcriptionally silent fraction of chromatin,is marked by specific epigenetic modifications that are diluted during each cell division. Here we build a physical model,based on the formation of a biomolecular condensate,a liquid 'droplet',that promotes the restoration of epigenetic marks. Heterochromatin facilitates the droplet formation via polymer-assisted condensation(PAC). The resulting condensate serves as a reaction chamber to reconstruct the lost epigenetic marks. We incorporate the enzymatic reactions into a particle-based simulation and monitor the progress of the epigenetic markers through an in silico analogue of the cell cycle. We demonstrate that the proposed mechanism is robust and stabilizes the heterochromatin domains over many cell generations. This mechanism and variations thereof might be at work for other epigenetic marks as well.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Macromolecules 55, 4841–4851 (2022)

    Sommer, J.-U., Merlitz, H., Schiessel, H.: Polymer-assisted condensation: a mechanism for heterochromatin formation and epigenetic memory. Macromolecules 55, 4841–4851 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Cortini, R., Barbi, M., Car´ e, B.R., Lavelle, C., Lesne, A., Mozziconacci, J., Victor, J.-M.: The physics of epigenetics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 025002 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    Nature 389, 251–260 (1997)

    Luger, K., M¨ ader, A.W., Richmond, R.K., Sargent, D.F., Richmond, T.J.: Crystal structure of the nucleosome core particle at 2.8 ˚A resolution. Nature 389, 251–260 (1997)

    work page 1997

  4. [3]

    Schiessel, H.: Spatial and temporal organization of chromatin at small and large scales. Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 193–210 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Science 361, 1386–1389 (2018)

    Yu, C., Gan, H., Serra-Cardona, A., Zhang, L., Gan, S., Sharma, S., Johansson, E., Chabes, A., Xu, R.-M., Zhang, Z.: A mechanism for preventing asymmetric histone segregation onto replicating DNA strands. Science 361, 1386–1389 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Nature 410(11), 120–124 (2001)

    Bannister, A.J., Zegerman, P., Partridge, J.F., Misca, E.A., Thomas, J.O., Allshire, R.C., Kouzarides, T.: Selective recognition of methylated lysine 9 on histone H3 by the HP1 chromo domain. Nature 410(11), 120–124 (2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [6]

    Science 292, 110–113 (2001)

    Nakayama, J.-i., Rice, J.C., Strahl, B.D., Allis, C.D., Grewal, S.I.S.: Role of histone H3 lysine 9 methylation in epigenetic control of heterochromatin assembly. Science 292, 110–113 (2001)

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    Gaszner, M., Felsenfeld, G.: Insulators: exploiting transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7, 703–713 (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Epigenomics 4, 67–80 (2012)

    Barkess, G., West, A.G.: Chromatin insulator elements: establishing barriers to set heterochromatin boundaries. Epigenomics 4, 67–80 (2012)

    2012

  2. [9]

    Nature 410, 116–120 (2001)

    Lachner, M., O’Carroll, D., Rea, S., Mechtler, K., Jenuwein, T.: Methylation of histone H3 lysine 9 creates a binding site for HP1 proteins. Nature 410, 116–120 (2001)

    2001

  3. [10]

    Cell 159, 1665–1680 (2014)

    Rao, S.S.P., Huntley, M.H., Durand, N.C., Stamenova, E.K., Bochkov, I.D., Robinson, J.T., Sanborn, A.L.I.M., Omer, A.D., Lander, E.S., Lieberman Aiden, E.: A 3D map of the human genome at kilobase resolution reveals principles of chromatin looping. Cell 159, 1665–1680 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    Hayflick, J.: The limited in vitro lifetime of human diploid cell strains. Exp. Cell Res. 37, 614–636 (1965)

    1965

  5. [12]

    EMBO Rep

    Xu, M., Wang, W., S., C., Zhu, B.: A model for mitotic inheritance of histone lysine methylation. EMBO Rep. 13, 60–67 (2012)

    2012

  6. [13]

    Cell 129, 813 (2007)

    Dodd, I.B., Micheelsen, M.A., Sneppen, K., Thon, G.: Theoretical analysis of epigenetic cell memory by nucleosome modifications. Cell 129, 813 (2007)

    2007

  7. [14]

    Micheelsen, M.A., Mitarai, N., Sneppen, K., Dodd, I.B.: Theory for the stability and regulation of epigenetic landscapes. Phys. Biol. 7, 026010 (2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    Dodd, I.B., Sneppen, K.: Barriers and silencers: a theoretical toolkit for control and containment of nucleosome- based epigenetic states. J. Mol. Biol. 414, 624 (2011)

    2011

  9. [16]

    Zhang, H., Tian, X.-J., Mukhopadhyay, A.: Statistical mechanics model for the dynamics of collective epigenetic histone modifications. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 068101 (2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

    Tian, X.-J., Zhang, H., Sannerud, J., Xing, J.: Achieving diverse and monoallelic olfactory receptor selection through dual-objective optimization design. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2889 (2016) 24

    2016

  11. [18]

    Erdel, F., Greene, E.C.: Generalized nucleation and looping model for epigenetic memory of histone modifications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4180 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Michieletto, D., Orlandini, E., Marenduzzo, D.: Polymer model with epigenetic recoloring reveals a pathway for the de novo establisment and 3d organization of chromatin domains. Phys. Rev. X 6, 041047 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    Nucleic Acids Res

    Jost, D., Vaillant, C.: Epigenomics in 3d: importance of long-range spreading and specific interactions in epigeneomic maintenance. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 2252 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Nucleic Acids Res

    Michieletto, D., Chiang, M., Col ` ı, D., Papantonis, A., Orlandini, E., Cook, P.R., Marenduzzo, D.: Shaping epigenetic memory via genomic bookmarking. Nucleic Acids Res. 46(83) (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    Sneppen, K., Ringrose, L.: Theoretical analysis of polycomb-trithorax systems predicts that poised chromatin is bistable and not bivalent. Nat. Commun. 10, 2133 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Sandholtz, S.H., MacPherson, Q., Spakowitz, A.J.: Physical modeling of the heritability and maintenance of epigenetic modifications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117(34), 20423–20429 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    Nickels, J.F., Edwards, A.K., Charlton, S.J., Mortensen, A.M., Hougaard, S.C.L., Trusina, A., Sneppen, K., Thon, G.: Establishment of heterochromatin in domain-size-dependent bursts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, 2022887118 (2021)

    2021

  18. [25]

    Katava, M., Shi, G., Thirumalai, D.: Chromatin dynamics controls epigenetic domain formation. Biophys. J. 121, 2895 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    Nucleic Acids Res

    Abdulla, A.Z., Vaillant, C., Jost, D.: Painters in chromatin: a unified quantitative framework to systematically characterize epigenome regulation and memory. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, 9083 (2022)

    2022

  20. [27]

    Science 382, 3053 (2023)

    Owen, J.A., Osmanovi´ c, D., Mirny, L.: Design principles of 3D epigenetic memory systems. Science 382, 3053 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    Skjegstad, L.E.J., Nickels, J.F., Sneppen, K., Kirkegaard, J.B.: Epigenetic switching with asymmetric bridging interactions. Biophys. J. 122, 2421 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    Saintillan, D., Shelley, M.J., Zidovska, A.: Extensile motor activity drives coherent motions in a model of interphase chromatin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11442–11447 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    Science 359, 6135 (2018)

    Gibcus, J.H., Samejima, K., Goloborodko, A., Samejima, I., Naumova, N., Nuebler, J., Kanemaki, M.T., Xie, L., Paulson, J.R., Earnshaw, W.C., Mirny, L.A., J., D.: A pathway for mitotic chromosome formation. Science 359, 6135 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Banani, S.F., Lee, H.O., Hyman, A.A., Rosen, M.K.: Biomolecular condensates: organizers of cellular biochemistry. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 18, 285–298 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Nature 547, 241–245 (2017)

    Strom, A.R., Emelyanov, A.V., Mir, M., Fyodorov, D.V., Darzacq, X., Karpen, G.H.: Phase separation drives heterochromatin domain formation. Nature 547, 241–245 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Nature 547, 236–240 (2017) 25

    Larson, A.G., Elnatan, D., Keenen, M.M., Trnka, M.J., Johnston, J.B., Burlingame, A.L., Agard, D.A., Redding, S., Narlikar, G.J.: Liquid droplet formation by HP1 α suggests a role for phase separation in heterochromatin. Nature 547, 236–240 (2017) 25

    2017

  27. [35]

    Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1979)

    Gennes, P.-G.: Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1979)

    1979

  28. [36]

    Watanabe, H., Ito, N., Hu, C.-K.: Phase diagram and universality of the Lennard-Jones gas-liquid system. J. Chem. Phys. 136, 204102 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    eLife 12, 82983 (2023)

    Adame-Arana, O., Bajpai, G., Lorber, D., Volk, T., Safran, S.: Regulation of chromatin microphase separation by binding of protein complexes. eLife 12, 82983 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Testa, A., Dindo, M., Rebane, A.A., Nosouri, B., Style, R.W., Golestanian, R., Dufrusne, E.R., Laurino, P.: Sustained enzymatic activity and flow in crowded protein droplets. Nat. Commun. 12, 6293 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    M¨ uller, M.M., Fierz, B., Bittova, L., Liszczak, G., Muir, T.W.: A two-state activation mechanism controls the histone methyltransferase Suv39h1. Nat. Chem. Biol. 12(3), 188–193 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Cell 187, 5029–5047 (2024)

    Charlton, S.J., Flury, V., Kanoh, Y., Genzor, A.V., Kollenstart, L., Ao, W., Brøgger, P., Weisser, M.B., Adamus, M., Alcaraz, N., Fenffe, C.M., Mattiroli, F., Montoya, G., Masai, H., Groth, A., Thon, G.: The fork protection complex promotes parental histone recycling and epige...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Hopfield, J.J.: Kinetic proofreading: a new mechanism for reducing errors in biosynthetic processes requiring high specificity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 71, 4135 (1974)

    1974

  34. [42]

    Macromolecules 52, 4120–4130 (2019)

    Galuschko, A., Sommer, J.-U.: Co-nonsolvency response of a polymer brush: A molecular dynamics study. Macromolecules 52, 4120–4130 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Plimpton, S.: Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 117, 1–19 (1995)

    1995

  36. [44]

    Jenny Stanford Publ., Singapore (2022) 26

    Schiessel, H.: Biophysics for Beginners: A Journey Through the Cell Nucleus. Jenny Stanford Publ., Singapore (2022) 26

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.