Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Phase separation in fungi

Nature Microbiology volume 8, pages 375–386 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Phase separation, in which macromolecules partition into a concentrated phase that is immiscible with a dilute phase, is involved with fundamental cellular processes across the tree of life. We review the principles of phase separation and highlight how it impacts diverse processes in the fungal kingdom. These include the regulation of autophagy, cell signalling pathways, transcriptional circuits and the establishment of asymmetry in fungal cells. We describe examples of stable, phase-separated assemblies including membraneless organelles such as the nucleolus as well as transient condensates that also arise through phase separation and enable cells to rapidly and reversibly respond to important environmental cues. We showcase how research into phase separation in model yeasts, such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe, in conjunction with that in plant and human fungal pathogens, such as Ashbya gossypii and Candida albicans, is continuing to enrich our understanding of fundamental molecular processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Stress-granule and P-body formation in response to environmental changes.
Fig. 2: Effect of molecular crowding on phase separation.
Fig. 3: Phase separation in polarized growth, cell asymmetry and nuclear divisions.
Fig. 4: Phase separation regulation of bulk and selective autophagy.
Fig. 5: Phase separation regulates transcription and fungal cell fate.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boeynaems, S. et al. Protein phase separation: a new phase in cell biology. Trends Cell Biol. 28, 420–435 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Gomes, E. & Shorter, J. The molecular language of membraneless organelles. J. Biol. Chem. 294, 7115–7127 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shin, Y. & Brangwynne, C. P. Liquid phase condensation in cell physiology and disease. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf4382 (2017).

  4. Mitrea, D. M. & Kriwacki, R. W. Phase separation in biology; functional organization of a higher order. Cell Commun. Signal. 14, 1 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Riback, J. A. et al. Stress-triggered phase separation is an adaptive, evolutionarily tuned response. Cell 168, 1028–1040 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ivanov, P., Kedersha, N. & Anderson, P. Stress granules and processing bodies in translational control. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a032813 (2019).

  7. Moon, S. L. et al. Multicolour single-molecule tracking of mRNA interactions with RNP granules. Nat. Cell Biol. 21, 162–168 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Jain, S. et al. ATPase-modulated stress granules contain a diverse proteome and substructure. Cell 164, 487–498 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kroschwald, S. et al. Promiscuous interactions and protein disaggregases determine the material state of stress-inducible RNP granules. eLife 4, e06807 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Anderson, P. & Kedersha, N. RNA granules. J. Cell Biol. 172, 803–808 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kroschwald, S. et al. Different material states of Pub1 condensates define distinct modes of stress adaptation and recovery. Cell Rep. 23, 3327–3339 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yoo, H., Bard, J. A. M., Pilipenko, E. V. & Drummond, D. A. Chaperones directly and efficiently disperse stress-triggered biomolecular condensates. Mol. Cell 82, 741–755 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Luo, Y., Na, Z. & Slavoff, S. A. P-bodies: composition, properties, and functions. Biochemistry 57, 2424–2431 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schutz, S., Noldeke, E. R. & Sprangers, R. A synergistic network of interactions promotes the formation of in vitro processing bodies and protects mRNA against decapping. Nucleic Acids Res. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx353 (2017).

  15. Fromm, S. A. et al. In vitro reconstitution of a cellular phase-transition process that involves the mRNA decapping machinery. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 53, 7354–7359 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Xing, W., Muhlrad, D., Parker, R. & Rosen, M. K. A quantitative inventory of yeast P body proteins reveals principles of composition and specificity. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56525 (2020).

  17. Fuller, G. G. et al. RNA promotes phase separation of glycolysis enzymes into yeast G bodies in hypoxia. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48480 (2020).

  18. Jin, M. et al. Glycolytic enzymes coalesce in G bodies under hypoxic stress. Cell Rep. 20, 895–908 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Munder, M. C. et al. A pH-driven transition of the cytoplasm from a fluid- to a solid-like state promotes entry into dormancy. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09347 (2016).

  20. Joyner, R. P. et al. A glucose-starvation response regulates the diffusion of macromolecules. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09376 (2016).

  21. Dechant, R. et al. Cytosolic pH is a second messenger for glucose and regulates the PKA pathway through V-ATPase. EMBO J. 29, 2515–2526 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Orij, R., Postmus, J., Ter Beek, A., Brul, S. & Smits, G. J. In vivo measurement of cytosolic and mitochondrial pH using a pH-sensitive GFP derivative in Saccharomyces cerevisiae reveals a relation between intracellular pH and growth. Microbiology 155, 268–278 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Petrovska, I. et al. Filament formation by metabolic enzymes is a specific adaptation to an advanced state of cellular starvation. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02409 (2014).

  24. Marini, G., Nuske, E., Leng, W., Alberti, S. & Pigino, G. Reorganization of budding yeast cytoplasm upon energy depletion. Mol. Biol. Cell 31, 1232–1245 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Parry, B. R. et al. The bacterial cytoplasm has glass-like properties and is fluidized by metabolic activity. Cell 156, 183–194 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Franzmann, T. M. et al. Phase separation of a yeast prion protein promotes cellular fitness. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao5654 (2018).

  27. Franzmann, T. M. & Alberti, S. Prion-like low-complexity sequences: key regulators of protein solubility and phase behavior. J. Biol. Chem. 294, 7128–7136 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lyke, D. R., Dorweiler, J. E. & Manogaran, A. L. The three faces of Sup35. Yeast 36, 465–472 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Andre, A. A. M. & Spruijt, E. Liquid–liquid phase separation in crowded environments. Int. J. Mol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21165908 (2020).

  30. Delarue, M. et al. mTORC1 controls phase separation and the biophysical properties of the cytoplasm by tuning crowding. Cell 174, 338–349 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shu, T. et al. nucGEMs probe the biophysical properties of the nucleoplasm. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.18.469159 (2022).

  32. Alexandrov, A. I. et al. Analysis of novel hyperosmotic shock response suggests ‘beads in liquid’ cytosol structure. Biol. Open https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.044529 (2019).

  33. Liu, B. et al. The polarisome is required for segregation and retrograde transport of protein aggregates. Cell 140, 257–267 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Xie, Y. et al. Polarisome scaffolder Spa2-mediated macromolecular condensation of Aip5 for actin polymerization. Nat. Commun. 10, 5078 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Xie, Y. & Miao, Y. Polarisome assembly mediates actin remodeling during polarized yeast and fungal growth. J Cell Sci. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.247916 (2021).

  36. Zhang, H. et al. RNA controls polyQ protein phase transitions. Mol. Cell 60, 220–230 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee, C., Occhipinti, P. & Gladfelter, A. S. PolyQ-dependent RNA–protein assemblies control symmetry breaking. J. Cell Biol. 208, 533–544 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee, C. et al. Protein aggregation behavior regulates cyclin transcript localization and cell-cycle control. Dev. Cell 25, 572–584 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Roden, C. & Gladfelter, A. S. RNA contributions to the form and function of biomolecular condensates. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 22, 183–195 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nakatogawa, H., Suzuki, K., Kamada, Y. & Ohsumi, Y. Dynamics and diversity in autophagy mechanisms: lessons from yeast. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 458–467 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Noda, N. N., Wang, Z. & Zhang, H. Liquid–liquid phase separation in autophagy. J. Cell Biol. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.202004062 (2020).

  42. Fujioka, Y. et al. Phase separation organizes the site of autophagosome formation. Nature 578, 301–305 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yamamoto, H. et al. The intrinsically disordered protein Atg13 mediates supramolecular assembly of autophagy initiation complexes. Dev. Cell 38, 86–99 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yamamoto, H. et al. Atg9 vesicles are an important membrane source during early steps of autophagosome formation. J. Cell Biol. 198, 219–233 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Suzuki, S. W. et al. Atg13 HORMA domain recruits Atg9 vesicles during autophagosome formation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3350–3355 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Yamasaki, A. & Noda, N. N. Structural biology of the Cvt pathway. J. Mol. Biol. 429, 531–542 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Yamasaki, A. et al. Liquidity is a critical determinant for selective autophagy of protein condensates. Mol. Cell 77, 1163–1175 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yamasaki, A. et al. Structural basis for receptor-mediated selective autophagy of aminopeptidase I aggregates. Cell Rep. 16, 19–27 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang, G., Wang, Z., Du, Z. & Zhang, H. mTOR regulates phase separation of PGL granules to modulate their autophagic degradation. Cell 174, 1492–1506 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wu, X. & Tu, B. P. Selective regulation of autophagy by the Iml1–Npr2–Npr3 complex in the absence of nitrogen starvation. Mol. Biol. Cell 22, 4124–4133 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Kato, M. et al. Redox state controls phase separation of the teast ataxin-2 protein via reversible oxidation of its methionine-rich low-complexity domain. Cell 177, 711–721 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Yang, Y. S. et al. Yeast ataxin-2 forms an intracellular condensate required for the inhibition of TORC1 signaling during respiratory growth. Cell 177, 697–710 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Prouteau, M. & Loewith, R. TOR signaling is going through a phase. Cell Metab. 29, 1019–1021 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lin, Y. et al. Redox-mediated regulation of an evolutionarily conserved cross-β structure formed by the TDP43 low complexity domain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 28727–28734 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Martin, R., Pohlers, S., Muhlschlegel, F. A. & Kurzai, O. CO2 sensing in fungi: at the heart of metabolic signaling. Curr. Genet. 63, 965–972 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Zhang, M. et al. The intrinsically disordered region from PP2C phosphatases functions as a conserved CO2 sensor. Nat. Cell Biol. 24, 1029–1037 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Feric, M. et al. Coexisting liquid phases underlie nucleolar subcompartments. Cell 165, 1686–1697 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Thiry, M. & Lafontaine, D. L. Birth of a nucleolus: the evolution of nucleolar compartments. Trends Cell Biol. 15, 194–199 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hult, C. et al. Enrichment of dynamic chromosomal crosslinks drive phase separation of the nucleolus. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 11159–11173 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Lawrimore, J. et al. The rDNA is biomolecular condensate formed by polymer–polymer phase separation and is sequestered in the nucleolus by transcription and R-loops. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 4586–4598 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Hall, A. C., Ostrowski, L. A. & Mekhail, K. Phase separation as a melting pot for DNA repeats. Trends Genet. 35, 589–600 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Larson, A. G. et al. Liquid droplet formation by HP1α suggests a role for phase separation in heterochromatin. Nature 547, 236–240 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Strom, A. R. et al. Phase separation drives heterochromatin domain formation. Nature 547, 241–245 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Wang, L. et al. Histone modifications regulate chromatin compartmentalization by contributing to a phase separation mechanism. Mol. Cell 76, 646–659 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Keenen, M. M. et al. HP1 proteins compact DNA into mechanically and positionally stable phase separated domains. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64563 (2021).

  66. Eeftens, J. M., Kapoor, M., Michieletto, D. & Brangwynne, C. P. Polycomb condensates can promote epigenetic marks but are not required for sustained chromatin compaction. Nat. Commun. 12, 5888 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Tatavosian, R. et al. Nuclear condensates of the Polycomb protein chromobox 2 (CBX2) assemble through phase separation. J. Biol. Chem. 294, 1451–1463 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Boija, A. et al. Transcription factors activate genes through the phase-separation capacity of their activation domains. Cell 175, 1842–1855 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Hnisz, D., Shrinivas, K., Young, R. A., Chakraborty, A. K. & Sharp, P. A. A phase separation model for transcriptional control. Cell 169, 13–23 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Shrinivas, K. et al. Enhancer features that drive formation of transcriptional condensates. Mol. Cell 75, 549–561 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Cho, W. K. et al. Mediator and RNA polymerase II clusters associate in transcription-dependent condensates. Science 361, 412–415 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Sabari, B. R. et al. Coactivator condensation at super-enhancers links phase separation and gene control. Science 361, eaar3958 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Mansour, M. R. et al. Oncogene regulation. An oncogenic super-enhancer formed through somatic mutation of a noncoding intergenic element. Science 346, 1373–1377 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Reiter, F., Wienerroither, S. & Stark, A. Combinatorial function of transcription factors and cofactors. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 43, 73–81 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Sorrells, T. R., Booth, L. N., Tuch, B. B. & Johnson, A. D. Intersecting transcription networks constrain gene regulatory evolution. Nature 523, 361–365 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Beyhan, S., Gutierrez, M., Voorhies, M. & Sil, A. A temperature-responsive network links cell shape and virulence traits in a primary fungal pathogen. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001614 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Borneman, A. R. et al. Divergence of transcription factor binding sites across related yeast species. Science 317, 815–819 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Nobile, C. J. et al. A recently evolved transcriptional network controls biofilm development in Candida albicans. Cell 148, 126–138 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Gomez-Pastor, R., Burchfiel, E. T. & Thiele, D. J. Regulation of heat shock transcription factors and their roles in physiology and disease. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 19, 4–19 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Hernday, A. D. et al. Structure of the transcriptional network controlling white–opaque switching in Candida albicans. Mol. Microbiol. 90, 22–35 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Zordan, R. E., Miller, M. G., Galgoczy, D. J., Tuch, B. B. & Johnson, A. D. Interlocking transcriptional feedback loops control white–opaque switching in Candida albicans. PLoS Biol. 5, e256 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Frazer, C. et al. Epigenetic cell fate in Candida albicans is controlled by transcription factor condensates acting at super-enhancer-like elements. Nat. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0760-7 (2020).

  83. Chowdhary, S., Kainth, A. S., Pincus, D. & Gross, D. S. Heat shock factor 1 drives intergenic association of its target gene loci upon heat shock. Cell Rep. 26, 18–28 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Kainth, A. S., Chowdhary, S., Pincus, D. & Gross, D. S. Primordial super-enhancers: heat shock-induced chromatin organization in yeast. Trends Cell Biol. 31, 801–813 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. McSwiggen, D. T. et al. Evidence for DNA-mediated nuclear compartmentalization distinct from phase separation. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47098 (2019).

  86. Blobel, G. A., Higgs, D. R., Mitchell, J. A., Notani, D. & Young, R. A. Testing the super-enhancer concept. Nat. Rev. Genet. 22, 749–755 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Chong, S. et al. Tuning levels of low-complexity domain interactions to modulate endogenous oncogenic transcription. Mol. Cell https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2022.04.007 (2022).

  88. Boehning, M. et al. RNA polymerase II clustering through carboxy-terminal domain phase separation. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 25, 833–840 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Lu, H. et al. Phase-separation mechanism for C-terminal hyperphosphorylation of RNA polymerase II. Nature 558, 318–323 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Burke, K. A., Janke, A. M., Rhine, C. L. & Fawzi, N. L. Residue-by-residue view of in vitro FUS granules that bind the C-terminal domain of RNA polymerase II. Mol. Cell 60, 231–241 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Guo, Y. E. et al. Pol II phosphorylation regulates a switch between transcriptional and splicing condensates. Nature 572, 543–548 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Portz, B. & Shorter, J. Switching condensates: the CTD code goes liquid. Trends Biochem. Sci. 45, 1–3 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Quintero-Cadena, P., Lenstra, T. L. & Sternberg, P. W. RNA Pol II length and disorder enable cooperative scaling of transcriptional bursting. Mol. Cell 79, 207–220 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Henninger, J. E. et al. RNA-mediated feedback control of transcriptional condensates. Cell 184, 207–225 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Shao, W. et al. Phase separation of RNA-binding protein promotes polymerase binding and transcription. Nat. Chem. Biol. 18, 70–80 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Bi, X. et al. RNA targets ribogenesis factor WDR43 to chromatin for transcription and pluripotency control. Mol. Cell 75, 102–116 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Chen, G. et al. Taf14 recognizes a common motif in transcriptional machineries and facilitates their clustering by phase separation. Nat. Commun. 11, 4206 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Rencus-Lazar, S., DeRowe, Y., Adsi, H., Gazit, E. & Laor, D. Yeast models for the study of amyloid-associated disorders and development of future therapy. Front. Mol. Biosci. 6, 15 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Tuite, M. F. Yeast models of neurodegenerative diseases. Prog. Mol. Biol. Transl Sci.168, 351–379 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Zbinden, A., Perez-Berlanga, M., De Rossi, P. & Polymenidou, M. Phase separation and neurodegenerative diseases: a disturbance in the force. Dev. Cell 55, 45–68 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Darling, A. L. & Shorter, J. Combating deleterious phase transitions in neurodegenerative disease. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Cell. Res. 1868, 118984 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Sun, Z. et al. Molecular determinants and genetic modifiers of aggregation and toxicity for the ALS disease protein FUS/TLS. PLoS Biol. 9, e1000614 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Elden, A. C. et al. Ataxin-2 intermediate-length polyglutamine expansions are associated with increased risk for ALS. Nature 466, 1069–1075 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Shorter, J. Designer protein disaggregases to counter neurodegenerative disease. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 44, 1–8 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Tariq, A. et al. Mining disaggregase sequence space to safely counter TDP-43, FUS, and α-synuclein proteotoxicity. Cell Rep. 28, 2080–2095 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Oldfield, C. J. & Dunker, A. K. Intrinsically disordered proteins and intrinsically disordered protein regions. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 83, 553–584 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Martin, E. W. et al. Valence and patterning of aromatic residues determine the phase behavior of prion-like domains. Science 367, 694–699 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Pak, C. W. et al. Sequence determinants of intracellular phase separation by complex coacervation of a disordered protein. Mol. Cell 63, 72–85 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Bremer, A. et al. Deciphering how naturally occurring sequence features impact the phase behaviours of disordered prion-like domains. Nat. Chem. 14, 196–207 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Wang, J. et al. A molecular grammar governing the driving forces for phase separation of prion-like RNA binding proteins. Cell 174, 688–699 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Vernon, R. M. et al. Pi–Pi contacts are an overlooked protein feature relevant to phase separation. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31486 (2018).

  112. Lin, Y., Currie, S. L. & Rosen, M. K. Intrinsically disordered sequences enable modulation of protein phase separation through distributed tyrosine motifs. J. Biol. Chem. 292, 19110–19120 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Murthy, A. C. et al. Molecular interactions underlying liquid–liquid phase separation of the FUS low-complexity domain. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 26, 637–648 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Conicella, A. E. et al. TDP-43 α-helical structure tunes liquid–liquid phase separation and function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 5883–5894 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Conicella, A. E., Zerze, G. H., Mittal, J. & Fawzi, N. L. ALS mutations disrupt phase separation mediated by α-helical structure in the TDP-43 low-complexity C-terminal domain. Structure 24, 1537–1549 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Murray, D. T. et al. Structure of FUS protein fibrils and its relevance to self-assembly and phase separation of low-complexity domains. Cell 171, 615–627 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Kato, M. et al. Cell-free formation of RNA granules: low complexity sequence domains form dynamic fibers within hydrogels. Cell 149, 753–767 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Kato, M., Zhou, X. & McKnight, S. L. How do protein domains of low sequence complexity work? RNA 28, 3–15 (2022).

  119. Fawzi, N. L., Parekh, S. H. & Mittal, J. Biophysical studies of phase separation integrating experimental and computational methods. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 70, 78–86 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Banani, S. F. et al. Compositional control of phase-separated cellular bodies. Cell 166, 651–663 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Mittag, T. & Pappu, R. V. A conceptual framework for understanding phase separation and addressing open questions and challenges. Mol. Cell 82, 2201–2214 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Brangwynne, C. P. Phase transitions and size scaling of membrane-less organelles. J. Cell Biol. 203, 875–881 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Dutagaci, B. et al. Charge-driven condensation of RNA and proteins suggests broad role of phase separation in cytoplasmic environments. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64004 (2021).

  125. Dignon, G. L., Best, R. B. & Mittal, J. Biomolecular phase separation: from molecular driving forces to macroscopic properties. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 71, 53–75 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Garcia-Jove Navarro, M. et al. RNA is a critical element for the sizing and the composition of phase-separated RNA–protein condensates. Nat. Commun. 10, 3230 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Guillen-Boixet, J. et al. RNA-induced conformational switching and clustering of G3BP drive stress granule assembly by condensation. Cell 181, 346–361 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Maharana, S. et al. RNA buffers the phase separation behavior of prion-like RNA binding proteins. Science 360, 918–921 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Ma, W., Zheng, G., Xie, W. & Mayr, C. In vivo reconstitution finds multivalent RNA–RNA interactions as drivers of mesh-like condensates. eLife https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64252 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the members of the Bennett laboratory for useful discussions and B. Tu (UTSW) for feedback on sections of the review. Work in the Bennett laboratory is supported by NIAID grant nos AI141893, AI081704 and AI166869, and work in the Fawzi laboratory is supported by NSF BIO 1845734 and NINDS R01NS116176.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Mae I. Staples, Corey Frazer.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

    Mae I. Staples, Corey Frazer & Richard J. Bennett

  2. Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

    Nicolas L. Fawzi

Authors
  1. Mae I. Staples
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Corey Frazer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicolas L. Fawzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard J. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.I.S. wrote the initial draft, which was extensively revised by R.J.B. and C.F., with input from N.L.F.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard J. Bennett.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

N.L.F. is a member of the scientific advisory board of Dewpoint Therapeutics.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Microbiology thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Staples, M.I., Frazer, C., Fawzi, N.L. et al. Phase separation in fungi. Nat Microbiol 8, 375–386 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-022-01314-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-022-01314-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing