Abstract
Cancer is a disease of uncontrollably reproducing cells. It is governed by biochemical pathways that have escaped the regulatory bounds of normal homeostatic balance. This balance is maintained through precise spatiotemporal regulation of these pathways. The formation of biomolecular condensates via liquid–liquid phase separation (LLPS) has recently emerged as a widespread mechanism underlying the spatiotemporal coordination of biological activities in cells. Biomolecular condensates are widely observed to directly regulate key cellular processes involved in cancer cell pathology, and the dysregulation of LLPS is increasingly implicated as a previously hidden driver of oncogenic activity. In this Perspective, we discuss how LLPS shapes the biochemical landscape of cancer cells.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lengauer, C., Kinzler, K. W. & Vogelstein, B. Genetic instabilities in human cancers. Nature 396, 643–649 (1998).
Sever, R. & Brugge, J. S. Signal transduction in cancer. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 5, a006098 (2015).
Sanchez-Vega, F. et al. Oncogenic signaling pathways in the cancer genome atlas. Cell 173, 321–337.e10 (2018).
Bradner, J. E., Hnisz, D. & Young, R. A. Transcriptional addiction in cancer. Cell 168, 629–643 (2017).
Sengupta, S. & George, R. E. Super-enhancer-driven transcriptional dependencies in cancer. Trends Cancer 3, 269–281 (2017).
Pohl, C. & Dikic, I. Cellular quality control by the ubiquitin-proteasome system and autophagy. Science 366, 818–822 (2019).
Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646–674 (2011).
Ward, P. S. & Thompson, C. B. Metabolic reprogramming: a cancer Hallmark Even Warburg did not anticipate. Cancer Cell 21, 297–308 (2012).
DeBerardinis, R. J. & Chandel, N. S. Fundamentals of cancer metabolism. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600200 (2016).
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).
Hyman, A. A., Weber, C. A. & Jülicher, F. Liquid-liquid phase separation in biology. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 30, 39–58 (2014). An excellent foundational review of LLPS and the underlying thermodynamic principles.
Boija, A., Klein, I. A. & Young, R. A. Biomolecular condensates and cancer. Cancer Cell 39, 174–192 (2021).
Cai, D., Liu, Z. & Lippincott-Schwartz, J. Biomolecular condensates and their links to cancer progression. Trends Biochem. Sci. 46, 535–549 (2021).
Lu, J. et al. Emerging roles of liquid–liquid phase separation in cancer: from protein aggregation to immune-associated signaling. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 9, 631486 (2021).
Taniue, K. & Akimitsu, N. Aberrant phase separation and cancer. FEBS J. 289, 17–39 (2021).
Jiang, S., Fagman, J. B., Chen, C., Alberti, S. & Liu, B. Protein phase separation and its role in tumorigenesis. eLife 9, e60264 (2020).
Choi, J.-M., Holehouse, A. S. & Pappu, R. V. Physical principles underlying the complex biology of intracellular phase transitions. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 49, 107–133 (2020). A comprehensive and essential primer on the stickers-and-spacers model of molecular interactions in LLPS.
Hyman, A. A. & Brangwynne, C. P. Beyond stereospecificity: liquids and mesoscale organization of cytoplasm. Dev. Cell 21, 14–16 (2011).
Brangwynne, C. P. et al. Germline P granules are liquid droplets that localize by controlled dissolution/condensation. Science 324, 1729–1732 (2009). This seminal work elegantly revealed the liquid-like properties of C. elegans P granules and fundamentally shaped the study of biological phase separation.
Harmon, T. S., Holehouse, A. S., Rosen, M. K. & Pappu, R. V. Intrinsically disordered linkers determine the interplay between phase separation and gelation in multivalent proteins. eLife 6, e30294 (2017).
Banani, S. F. et al. Compositional control of phase-separated cellular bodies. Cell 166, 651–663 (2016).
Zink, D., Fischer, A. H. & Nickerson, J. A. Nuclear structure in cancer cells. Nat. Rev. Cancer 4, 677–687 (2004).
Strom, A. R. & Brangwynne, C. P. The liquid nucleome – phase transitions in the nucleus at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 132, jcs235093 (2019).
Lafontaine, D. L. J., Riback, J. A., Bascetin, R. & Brangwynne, C. P. The nucleolus as a multiphase liquid condensate. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 22, 165–182 (2021).
Min, J., Wright, W. E. & Shay, J. W. Clustered telomeres in phase-separated nuclear condensates engage mitotic DNA synthesis through BLM and RAD52. Gene Dev. 33, 814–827 (2019).
Zhang, H. et al. Nuclear body phase separation drives telomere clustering in ALT cancer cells. Mol. Biol. Cell 31, 2048–2056 (2020).
de Thé, H., Pandolfi, P. P. & Chen, Z. Acute promyelocytic leukemia: a paradigm for oncoprotein-targeted cure. Cancer Cell 32, 552–560 (2017).
Sabari, B. R. et al. Coactivator condensation at super-enhancers links phase separation and gene control. Science 361, eaar3958 (2018).
Cho, W.-K. et al. Mediator and RNA polymerase II clusters associate in transcription-dependent condensates. Science 361, eaar4199 (2018).
Cai, D. et al. Phase separation of YAP reorganizes genome topology for long-term YAP target gene expression. Nat. Cell Biol. 21, 1578–1589 (2019).
Lu, Y. et al. Phase separation of TAZ compartmentalizes the transcription machinery to promote gene expression. Nat. Cell Biol. 22, 453–464 (2020).
Altmeyer, M. et al. Liquid demixing of intrinsically disordered proteins is seeded by poly(ADP-ribose). Nat. Commun. 6, 8088 (2015).
Kilic, S. et al. Phase separation of 53BP1 determines liquid-like behavior of DNA repair compartments. EMBO J. 38, e101379 (2019).
Gibson, B. A. et al. Organization of chromatin by intrinsic and regulated phase separation. Cell 179, 470–484.e21 (2019).
Larson, A. G. et al. Liquid droplet formation by HP1α suggests a role for phase separation in heterochromatin. Nature 547, 236–240 (2017).
Sanulli, S. et al. HP1 reshapes nucleosome core to promote phase separation of heterochromatin. Nature 575, 390–394 (2019).
Jia, Q., Chen, S., Tan, Y., Li, Y. & Tang, F. Oncogenic super-enhancer formation in tumorigenesis and its molecular mechanisms. Exp. Mol. Med. 52, 713–723 (2020).
Hnisz, D. et al. Super-enhancers in the control of cell identity and disease. Cell 155, 934–947 (2013).
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).
Han, X. et al. Roles of the BRD4 short isoform in phase separation and active gene transcription. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 27, 333–341 (2020).
Arnold, P. R., Wells, A. D. & Li, X. C. Diversity and emerging roles of enhancer RNA in regulation of gene expression and cell fate. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 7, 377 (2020).
Roden, C. & Gladfelter, A. S. RNA contributions to the form and function of biomolecular condensates. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 22, 183–195 (2021).
Nair, S. J. et al. Phase separation of ligand-activated enhancers licenses cooperative chromosomal enhancer assembly. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 26, 193–203 (2019).
Wei, M.-T. et al. Nucleated transcriptional condensates amplify gene expression. Nat. Cell Biol. 22, 1187–1196 (2020).
Jaeger, M. G. et al. Selective Mediator dependence of cell-type-specifying transcription. Nat. Genet. 52, 719–727 (2020).
Khattabi, L. E. et al. A pliable mediator acts as a functional rather than an architectural bridge between promoters and enhancers. Cell 178, 1145–1158.e20 (2019).
Crump, N. T. et al. BET inhibition disrupts transcription but retains enhancer-promoter contact. Nat. Commun. 12, 223 (2021).
Hsieh, T.-H. S. et al. Enhancer-promoter interactions and transcription are maintained upon acute loss of CTCF, cohesin, WAPL, and YY1. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.14.452365 (2021).
Zanconato, F. et al. Transcriptional addiction in cancer cells is mediated by YAP/TAZ through BRD4. Nat. Med. 24, 1599–1610 (2018).
Zanconato, F., Cordenonsi, M. & Piccolo, S. YAP/TAZ at the roots of cancer. Cancer Cell 29, 783–803 (2016).
Yu, M. et al. Interferon-γ induces tumor resistance to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy by promoting YAP phase separation. Mol. Cell 81, 1216–1230.e9 (2021).
Reggiani, F., Gobbi, G., Ciarrocchi, A. & Sancisi, V. YAP and TAZ are not identical twins. Trends Biochem. Sci. 46, 154–168 (2020).
Dietlein, F., Thelen, L. & Reinhardt, H. C. Cancer-specific defects in DNA repair pathways as targets for personalized therapeutic approaches. Trends Genet. 30, 326–339 (2014).
Halazonetis, T. D., Gorgoulis, V. G. & Bartek, J. An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science 319, 1352–1355 (2008).
Pessina, F. et al. Functional transcription promoters at DNA double-strand breaks mediate RNA-driven phase separation of damage-response factors. Nat. Cell Biol. 21, 1286–1299 (2019).
Iarovaia, O. V. et al. Dynamics of double strand breaks and chromosomal translocations. Mol. Cancer 13, 249 (2014).
Singatulina, A. S. et al. PARP-1 activation directs FUS to DNA damage sites to form PARG-reversible compartments enriched in damaged DNA. Cell Rep. 27, 1809–1821.e5 (2019).
Aguilera, A. The connection between transcription and genomic instability. EMBO J. 21, 195–201 (2002).
Strom, A. R. et al. Phase separation drives heterochromatin domain formation. Nature 547, 241–245 (2017).
Dialynas, G. K., Vitalini, M. W. & Wallrath, L. L. Linking heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) to cancer progression. Mutat. Res. 647, 13–20 (2008).
Erdel, F. et al. Mouse heterochromatin adopts digital compaction states without showing Hallmarks of HP1-driven liquid-liquid phase separation. Mol. Cell 78, 236–249.e7 (2020).
Dikic, I. Proteasomal and autophagic degradation systems. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 86, 193–224 (2017).
White, E. The role for autophagy in cancer. J. Clin. Invest. 125, 42–46 (2015).
Manasanch, E. E. & Orlowski, R. Z. Proteasome inhibitors in cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 14, 417–433 (2017).
Kim, H., Bhattacharya, A. & Qi, L. Endoplasmic reticulum quality control in cancer: friend or foe. Semin. Cancer Biol. 33, 25–33 (2015).
Clark, A. & Burleson, M. SPOP and cancer: a systematic review. Am. J. Cancer Res. 10, 704–726 (2020).
Bouchard, J. J. et al. Cancer mutations of the tumor suppressor SPOP disrupt the formation of active, phase-separated compartments. Mol. Cell 72, 19–36.e8 (2018).
Yasuda, S. et al. Stress- and ubiquitylation-dependent phase separation of the proteasome. Nature 578, 296–300 (2020).
Dai, C., Whitesell, L., Rogers, A. B. & Lindquist, S. Heat shock factor 1 is a powerful multifaceted modifier of carcinogenesis. Cell 130, 1005–1018 (2007).
Chen, L. et al. Enhanced degradation of misfolded proteins promotes tumorigenesis. Cell Rep. 18, 3143–3154 (2017).
Fujioka, Y. et al. Phase separation organizes the site of autophagosome formation. Nature 578, 301–305 (2020).
Yamamoto, H. et al. The intrinsically disordered protein Atg13 mediates supramolecular assembly of autophagy initiation complexes. Dev. Cell 38, 86–99 (2016).
Noda, N. N. & Fujioka, Y. Atg1 family kinases in autophagy initiation. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 72, 3083–3096 (2015).
Sun, D., Wu, R., Zheng, J., Li, P. & Yu, L. Polyubiquitin chain-induced p62 phase separation drives autophagic cargo segregation. Cell Res. 28, 405–415 (2018).
Li, X., He, S. & Ma, B. Autophagy and autophagy-related proteins in cancer. Mol. Cancer 19, 12 (2020).
Chavez-Dominguez, R., Perez-Medina, M., Lopez-Gonzalez, J. S., Galicia-Velasco, M. & Aguilar-Cazares, D. The double-edge sword of autophagy in cancer: from tumor suppression to pro-tumor activity. Front. Oncol. 10, 578418 (2020).
Kumar, M. & Papaleo, E. A pan-cancer assessment of alterations of the kinase domain of ULK1, an upstream regulator of autophagy. Sci. Rep. 10, 14874 (2020).
Amaravadi, R., Kimmelman, A. C. & White, E. Recent insights into the function of autophagy in cancer. Gene Dev. 30, 1913–1930 (2016).
Mehta, S. & Zhang, J. Biochemical activity architectures visualized–using genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors to map the spatial boundaries of signaling compartments. Acc. Chem. Res. 54, 2409–2420 (2021).
Patra, K. C. & Hay, N. The pentose phosphate pathway and cancer. Trends Biochem. Sci. 39, 347–354 (2014).
Yang, M. & Vousden, K. H. Serine and one-carbon metabolism in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 16, 650–662 (2016).
Sweetlove, L. J. & Fernie, A. R. The role of dynamic enzyme assemblies and substrate channelling in metabolic regulation. Nat. Commun. 9, 2136 (2018).
Kohnhorst, C. L. et al. Identification of a multienzyme complex for glucose metabolism in living cells. J. Biol. Chem. 292, 9191–9203 (2017).
An, S., Kumar, R., Sheets, E. D. & Benkovic, S. J. Reversible compartmentalization of de novo purine biosynthetic complexes in living cells. Science 320, 103–106 (2008).
Zhou, W. et al. Purine metabolism regulates DNA repair and therapy resistance in glioblastoma. Nat. Commun. 11, 3811 (2020).
Lv, Y. et al. Nucleotide de novo synthesis increases breast cancer stemness and metastasis via cGMP-PKG-MAPK signaling pathway. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000872 (2020).
Kyoung, M., Russell, S. J., Kohnhorst, C. L., Esemoto, N. N. & An, S. Dynamic architecture of the purinosome involved in human de novo purine biosynthesis. Biochemistry 54, 870–880 (2015).
Doigneaux, C. et al. Hypoxia drives the assembly of the multienzyme purinosome complex. J. Biol. Chem. 295, 9551–9566 (2020).
Pareek, V., Tian, H., Winograd, N. & Benkovic, S. J. Metabolomics and mass spectrometry imaging reveal channeled de novo purine synthesis in cells. Science 368, 283–290 (2020).
Liu, Q. et al. Glycogen accumulation and phase separation drives liver tumor initiation. Cell 184, 5559–5576.e19 (2021).
Wright, P. E. & Dyson, H. J. Intrinsically disordered proteins in cellular signalling and regulation. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16, 18–29 (2015).
Yum, S., Li, M., Frankel, A. E. & Chen, Z. J. Roles of the cGAS-STING pathway in cancer immunosurveillance and immunotherapy. Annu. Rev. Cancer Biol. 3, 323–344 (2019).
Du, M. & Chen, Z. J. DNA-induced liquid phase condensation of cGAS activates innate immune signaling. Science 361, eaat1022 (2018).
Zhou, W., Mohr, L., Maciejowski, J. & Kranzusch, P. J. cGAS phase separation inhibits TREX1-mediated DNA degradation and enhances cytosolic DNA sensing. Mol. Cell 81, 739–755.e7 (2021).
Woo, S.-R. et al. STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing mediates innate immune recognition of immunogenic tumors. Immunity 41, 830–842 (2014).
Schadt, L. et al. Cancer-cell-intrinsic cGAS expression mediates tumor immunogenicity. Cell Rep. 29, 1236–1248.e7 (2019).
Ng, K. W., Marshall, E. A., Bell, J. C. & Lam, W. L. cGAS–STING and cancer: dichotomous roles in tumor immunity and development. Trends Immunol. 39, 44–54 (2018).
Yu, X. et al. The STING phase-separator suppresses innate immune signalling. Nat. Cell Biol. 23, 330–340 (2021).
Zaccolo, M. Spatial control of cAMP signalling in health and disease. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 11, 649–655 (2011).
Wu, V. et al. Illuminating the Onco-GPCRome: novel G protein–coupled receptor-driven oncocrine networks and targets for cancer immunotherapy. J. Biol. Chem. 294, 11062–11086 (2019).
Ramms, D. J. et al. Gαs-protein kinase A (PKA) pathway signalopathies: the emerging genetic landscape and therapeutic potential of human diseases driven by aberrant Gαs-PKA signaling. Pharmacol. Rev. 73, 155–197 (2021).
Deng, Z. et al. Selective autophagy of AKAP11 activates cAMP/PKA to fuel mitochondrial metabolism and tumor cell growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2020215118 (2021).
Beristain, A. G. et al. PKA signaling drives mammary tumorigenesis through Src. Oncogene 34, 1160–1173 (2015).
Zhang, J. Z. et al. Phase separation of a PKA regulatory subunit controls cAMP compartmentation and oncogenic signaling. Cell 182, 1531–1544.e15 (2020). This study revealed that phase separation plays a key role in the spatial organization of cAMP signalling and underlies the pathological mechanism of an oncogenic fusion kinase.
Buxton, I. L. & Brunton, L. L. Compartments of cyclic AMP and protein kinase in mammalian cardiomyocytes. J. Biol. Chem. 258, 10233–10239 (1983).
Baillie, G. S. Compartmentalized signalling: spatial regulation of cAMP by the action of compartmentalized phosphodiesterases. FEBS J. 276, 1790–1799 (2009).
Bock, A. et al. Optical mapping of cAMP signaling at the nanometer scale. Cell 182, 1519–1530.e17 (2020).
Adriaens, C. et al. p53 induces formation of NEAT1 lncRNA-containing paraspeckles that modulate replication stress response and chemosensitivity. Nat. Med. 22, 861–868 (2016). This study implicates biomolecular condensates in a negative feedback loop that suppresses p53 activation in precancerous cells and identifies NEAT1 as a potential therapeutic target.
Barra, J. et al. Integrator restrains paraspeckles assembly by promoting isoform switching of the lncRNA NEAT1. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz9072 (2020).
Vogelstein, B., Lane, D. & Levine, A. J. Surfing the p53 network. Nature 408, 307–310 (2000).
Sengupta, S. & Harris, C. C. p53: traffic cop at the crossroads of DNA repair and recombination. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 6, 44–55 (2005).
Blume, C. J. et al. p53-dependent non-coding RNA networks in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leukemia 29, 2015–2023 (2015).
Hu, J. et al. AKAP95 regulates splicing through scaffolding RNAs and RNA processing factors. Nat. Commun. 7, 13347 (2016).
Li, W. et al. Biophysical properties of AKAP95 protein condensates regulate splicing and tumorigenesis. Nat. Cell Biol. 22, 960–972 (2020).
Qi, F. et al. Synergistic effects of AKAP95, Cyclin D1, Cyclin E1, and Cx43 in the development of rectal cancer. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 8, 1666–1673 (2015).
Liu, W. et al. Roles of Cx43 and AKAP95 in ovarian cancer tissues in G1/S phase. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 8, 14315–14324 (2015).
Kerr, D. L., Haderk, F. & Bivona, T. G. Allosteric SHP2 inhibitors in cancer: targeting the intersection of RAS, resistance, and the immune microenvironment. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 62, 1–12 (2021).
Yuan, X., Bu, H., Zhou, J., Yang, C.-Y. & Zhang, H. Recent advances of SHP2 inhibitors in cancer therapy: current development and clinical application. J. Med. Chem. 63, 11368–11396 (2020).
Edouard, T. et al. How do Shp2 mutations that oppositely influence its biochemical activity result in syndromes with overlapping symptoms? Cell Mol. Life Sci. 64, 1585–1590 (2007).
Zhu, G. et al. Phase separation of disease-associated SHP2 mutants underlies MAPK hyperactivation. Cell 183, 490–502.e18 (2020). SHP2 mutations with opposite effects on catalytic activity are shown to drive aberrant signalling via enhanced phase separation, highlighting gain of LLPS as an oncogenic driver.
Nelson, K. N., Peiris, M. N., Meyer, A. N., Siari, A. & Donoghue, D. J. Receptor tyrosine kinases: translocation partners in hematopoietic disorders. Trends Mol. Med. 23, 59–79 (2017).
Kovar, H. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: the two faces of the FUS/EWS/TAF15 protein family. Sarcoma 2011, 837474 (2011).
Boulay, G. et al. Cancer-specific retargeting of BAF complexes by a Prion-like domain. Cell 171, 163–178.e19 (2017).
Ahn, J. H. et al. Phase separation drives aberrant chromatin looping and cancer development. Nature 595, 591–595 (2021).
Du, Z. & Lovly, C. M. Mechanisms of receptor tyrosine kinase activation in cancer. Mol. Cancer 17, 58 (2018).
Sabir, S. R., Yeoh, S., Jackson, G. & Bayliss, R. EML4-ALK variants: biological and molecular properties, and the implications for patients. Cancers 9, 118 (2017).
Tulpule, A. et al. Kinase-mediated RAS signaling via membraneless cytoplasmic protein granules. Cell 184, 2649–2664.e18 (2021). This study reveals that aberrant gain of phase separation capability allows oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinase fusions to drive tumorigenic signalling from the cytoplasm.
Qin, Z. et al. Phase separation of EML4–ALK in firing downstream signaling and promoting lung tumorigenesis. Cell Discov. 7, 33 (2021).
Su, X. et al. Phase separation of signaling molecules promotes T cell receptor signal transduction. Science 352, 595–599 (2016).
Brien, G. L., Stegmaier, K. & Armstrong, S. A. Targeting chromatin complexes in fusion protein-driven malignancies. Nat. Rev. Cancer 19, 255–269 (2019).
Arvand, A. & Denny, C. T. Biology of EWS/ETS fusions in Ewing’s family tumors. Oncogene 20, 5747–5754 (2001).
Delattre, O. et al. Gene fusion with an ETS DNA-binding domain caused by chromosome translocation in human tumours. Nature 359, 162–165 (1992).
Johnson, K. M. et al. Role for the EWS domain of EWS/FLI in binding GGAA-microsatellites required for Ewing sarcoma anchorage independent growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9870–9875 (2017).
Riggi, N. et al. EWS-FLI1 utilizes divergent chromatin remodeling mechanisms to directly activate or repress enhancer elements in Ewing sarcoma. Cancer Cell 26, 668–681 (2014).
Denning, D. P., Patel, S. S., Uversky, V., Fink, A. L. & Rexach, M. Disorder in the nuclear pore complex: the FG repeat regions of nucleoporins are natively unfolded. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 2450–2455 (2003).
Honeyman, J. N. et al. Detection of a recurrent DNAJB1-PRKACA chimeric transcript in fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma. Science 343, 1010–1014 (2014).
Kastenhuber, E. R. et al. DNAJB1–PRKACA fusion kinase interacts with β-catenin and the liver regenerative response to drive fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 13076–13084 (2017).
Riggle, K. M. et al. Enhanced cAMP-stimulated protein kinase A activity in human fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma. Pediatr. Res. 80, 110–118 (2016).
Cao, B. et al. Structures of the PKA RIα holoenzyme with the FLHCC driver J-PKAcα or wild-type PKAcα. Structure 27, 816–828.e4 (2019).
Graham, R. P. et al. Fibrolamellar carcinoma in the Carney complex: PRKAR1A loss instead of the classic DNAJB1-PRKACA fusion. Hepatology 68, 1441–1447 (2018).
Singhi, A. D. et al. Recurrent rearrangements in PRKACA and PRKACB in intraductal oncocytic papillary neoplasms of the pancreas and bile duct. Gastroenterology 158, 573–582.e2 (2019).
Shi, B. et al. UTX condensation underlies its tumour-suppressive activity. Nature 597, 726–731 (2021). Phase separation is shown to be the key molecular activity in UTX-mediated tumour suppression that is disrupted by cancer-causing mutations, illustrating how loss of LLPS drives cancer pathology.
Andricovich, J. et al. Loss of KDM6A activates super-enhancers to induce gender-specific squamous-like pancreatic cancer and confers sensitivity to BET inhibitors. Cancer Cell 33, 512–526.e8 (2018).
Miller, S. A., Mohn, S. E. & Weinmann, A. S. Jmjd3 and UTX play a demethylase-independent role in chromatin remodeling to regulate T-box family member-dependent gene expression. Mol. Cell 40, 594–605 (2010).
Wang, L. & Shilatifard, A. UTX mutations in human cancer. Cancer Cell 35, 168–176 (2019).
Fasciani, A. et al. MLL4-associated condensates counterbalance polycomb-mediated nuclear mechanical stress in Kabuki syndrome. Nat. Genet. 52, 1397–1411 (2020).
Zhang, Y. et al. Nuclear condensates of p300 formed though the structured catalytic core can act as a storage pool of p300 with reduced HAT activity. Nat. Commun. 12, 4618 (2021).
Huang, W. Y. C. et al. A molecular assembly phase transition and kinetic proofreading modulate Ras activation by SOS. Science 363, 1098–1103 (2019).
Tenner, B. et al. FluoSTEPs: fluorescent biosensors for monitoring compartmentalized signaling within endogenous microdomains. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe4091 (2021).
Shin, Y. et al. Spatiotemporal control of intracellular phase transitions using light-activated optoDroplets. Cell 168, 159–171.e14 (2017).
Bracha, D. et al. Mapping local and global liquid phase behavior in living cells using photo-oligomerizable seeds. Cell 175, 1467–1480.e13 (2018).
Zhang, Z. et al. Chemical perturbation of an intrinsically disordered region of TFIID distinguishes two modes of transcription initiation. eLife 4, e07777 (2015).
Ban, D., Iconaru, L. I., Ramanathan, A., Zuo, J. & Kriwacki, R. W. A small molecule causes a population shift in the conformational landscape of an intrinsically disordered protein. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 139, 13692–13700 (2017).
Iconaru, L. I. et al. Discovery of small molecules that inhibit the disordered protein, p27Kip1. Sci. Rep. 5, 15686 (2015).
Wheeler, R. J. et al. Small molecules for modulating protein driven liquid-liquid phase separation in treating neurodegenerative disease. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/721001 (2019).
Burslem, G. M. & Crews, C. M. Proteolysis-targeting chimeras as therapeutics and tools for biological discovery. Cell 181, 102–114 (2020).
Winkle, M., El-Daly, S. M., Fabbri, M. & Calin, G. A. Noncoding RNA therapeutics — challenges and potential solutions. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 20, 629–651 (2021).
Dammes, N. & Peer, D. Paving the road for RNA therapeutics. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 41, 755–775 (2020).
Klein, I. A. et al. Partitioning of cancer therapeutics in nuclear condensates. Science 368, 1386–1392 (2020). By revealing that anticancer drugs spontaneously accumulate in phase-separated bodies, which affects drug activity, this work provides new insights into drug pharmacodynamics that may ultimately inform therapeutic advances.
Bracha, D., Walls, M. T. & Brangwynne, C. P. Probing and engineering liquid-phase organelles. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1435–1445 (2019).
Sander, J. D. & Joung, J. K. CRISPR-Cas systems for editing, regulating and targeting genomes. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 347–355 (2014).
Doudna, J. A. & Charpentier, E. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346, 1258096 (2014).
Kamiyama, D. et al. Versatile protein tagging in cells with split fluorescent protein. Nat. Commun. 7, 11046 (2016).
Qin, W., Cho, K. F., Cavanagh, P. E. & Ting, A. Y. Deciphering molecular interactions by proximity labeling. Nat. Methods 18, 133–143 (2021).
Yu, H. et al. HSP70 chaperones RNA-free TDP-43 into anisotropic intranuclear liquid spherical shells. Science 371, eabb4309 (2021).
Markmiller, S. et al. Context-dependent and disease-specific diversity in protein interactions within stress granules. Cell 172, 590–604.e13 (2018).
Chen, X. et al. Visualizing RNA dynamics in live cells with bright and stable fluorescent RNAs. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1287–1293 (2019).
Fazal, F. M. et al. Atlas of subcellular RNA localization revealed by APEX-Seq. Cell 178, 473–490.e26 (2019).
Taylor, N. O., Wei, M.-T., Stone, H. A. & Brangwynne, C. P. Quantifying dynamics in phase-separated condensates using fluorescence recovery after photobleaching. Biophys. J. 117, 1285–1300 (2019).
Quiroz, F. G. et al. Liquid-liquid phase separation drives skin barrier formation. Science 367, eaax9554 (2020).
Zeng, M. et al. Phase transition in postsynaptic densities underlies formation of synaptic complexes and synaptic plasticity. Cell 166, 1163–1175.e12 (2016).
Schermelleh, L. et al. Super-resolution microscopy demystified. Nat. Cell Biol. 21, 72–84 (2019).
Huang, B., Bates, M. & Zhuang, X. Super-resolution fluorescence microscopy. Biochemistry 78, 993–1016 (2009).
Jain, S. et al. ATPase-modulated stress granules contain a diverse proteome and substructure. Cell 164, 487–498 (2016).
Delarue, M. et al. mTORC1 controls phase separation and the biophysical properties of the cytoplasm by tuning crowding. Cell 174, 338–349.e20 (2018).
Kroschwald, S., Maharana, S. & Simon, A. Hexanediol: a chemical probe to investigate the material properties of membrane-less compartments. Matters https://doi.org/10.19185/matters.201702000010 (2017).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R35 CA197622, R01 DK073368, and R01 DE030497 to J.Z.) and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9500-18-1-0051 to J.Z.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Cancer thanks Hao Jiang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) 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
About this article
Cite this article
Mehta, S., Zhang, J. Liquid–liquid phase separation drives cellular function and dysfunction in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 22, 239–252 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-022-00444-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-022-00444-7
This article is cited by
-
Physiology and pharmacological targeting of phase separation
Journal of Biomedical Science (2024)
-
Mex-3 RNA binding family member A (MEX3A)/circMPP6 complex promotes colorectal cancer progression by inhibiting autophagy
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy (2024)
-
G-quadruplexes promote the motility in MAZ phase-separated condensates to activate CCND1 expression and contribute to hepatocarcinogenesis
Nature Communications (2024)
-
A chaperone-like function of FUS ensures TAZ condensate dynamics and transcriptional activation
Nature Cell Biology (2024)
-
FUS maintains TAZ fluidity and function
Nature Cell Biology (2024)
