Liquid-liquid phase separation induces pathogenic tau conformations in vitro

Formation of membrane-less organelles via liquid-liquid phase separation is one way cells meet the biological requirement for spatiotemporal regulation of cellular components and reactions. Recently, tau, a protein known for its involvement in Alzheimer’s disease and other tauopathies, was found to undergo liquid–liquid phase separation making it one of several proteins associated with neurodegenerative diseases to do so. Here, we demonstrate that tau forms dynamic liquid droplets in vitro at physiological protein levels upon molecular crowding in buffers that resemble physiological conditions. Tau droplet formation is significantly enhanced by disease-associated modifications, including the AT8 phospho-epitope and the P301L tau mutation linked to an inherited tauopathy. Moreover, tau droplet dynamics are significantly reduced by these modified forms of tau. Extended phase separation promoted a time-dependent adoption of toxic conformations and oligomerization, but not filamentous aggregation. P301L tau protein showed the greatest oligomer formation following extended phase separation. These findings suggest that phase separation of tau may facilitate the formation of non-filamentous pathogenic tau conformations.


Statistics
For all statistical analyses, confirm that the following items are present in the figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section.
n/a Confirmed The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a discrete number and unit of measurement A statement on whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedly The statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one-or two-sided Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section.
A description of all covariates tested A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons A full description of the statistical parameters including central tendency (e.g. means) or other basic estimates (e.g. regression coefficient) AND variation (e.g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals) For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e.g. F, t, r) with confidence intervals, effect sizes, degrees of freedom and P value noted Give P values as exact values whenever suitable.

For Bayesian analysis, information on the choice of priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo settings
For hierarchical and complex designs, identification of the appropriate level for tests and full reporting of outcomes Estimates of effect sizes (e.g. Cohen's d, Pearson's r), indicating how they were calculated Our web collection on statistics for biologists contains articles on many of the points above.

Software and code
Policy information about availability of computer code Data collection

Data analysis
For manuscripts utilizing custom algorithms or software that are central to the research but not yet described in published literature, software must be made available to editors/reviewers. We strongly encourage code deposition in a community repository (e.g. GitHub). See the Nature Research guidelines for submitting code & software for further information.

Data
Policy information about availability of data All manuscripts must include a data availability statement. This statement should provide the following information, where applicable: GFP intensity standard curve data were assessed for outlier replicates (>3 times the mean and >2 standard deviations of other replicates), and accordingly a single replicate was removed from the GFP concentration standard curve imaging data (Fig. 2c, see Source Data File). No other replicate or experimental data points were excluded from analysis in this work.
Experiments were repeated multiple independent times (indicated in the manuscript where relevant). We tested recombinant protein preparation for reproducibility by producing multiple preparations of wild-type tau, all of which displayed similar behaviors (as reported in the manuscript).
Randomization is not relevant for this study as the recombinant protein experiments do not involve assignment of samples to different groups. The animal work described here was simply utilization of an animal to generate a new monoclonal antibody, thus,randomization is not possible/necessary. This work involved in vitro recombinant protein assays and the use of an animal to generate a new monoclonal antibody. Blinding was not utilized for the in vitro recombinant protein studies, but controls and group samples were processed either simultaneously or in parallel in all experiments. Binding is not practical or useful in the process of generating a monoclonal antibody and a single animal was used for this purpose.