Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30640588›Full record

ReviewMolecular biology of the cell2019

Colloid osmotic parameterization and measurement of subcellular crowding.

T J Mitchison

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular biology of the cell, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

T J MitchisonMarine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543.

Funding

Cell and Chemical Biology of MicrotubulesR35GM131753 · NIGMS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI Timothy J Mitchison · 2019 to 2026
$6.4M
MICROTUBULE DYNAMICS AND MITOTIC MECHANISMR01GM039565 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO · PI MITCHISON, TIMOTHY J · 1988 to 2018
$6.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM039565NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM131753
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Crowding of the subcellular environment by macromolecules is thought to promote protein aggregation and phase separation. A challenge is how to parameterize the degree of crowding of the cell interior or artificial solutions that is relevant to these reactions. Here I review colloid osmotic pressure as a crowding metric. This pressure is generated by solutions of macromolecules in contact with pores that are permeable to water and ions but not macromolecules. It generates depletion forces that push macromolecules together in crowded solutions and thus promotes aggregation and phase separation. I discuss measurements of colloid osmotic pressure inside cells using the nucleus, the cytoplasmic gel, and fluorescence resonant energy transfer (FRET) biosensors as osmometers, which return a range of values from 1 to 20 kPa. I argue for a low value, 1-2 kPa, in frog eggs and perhaps more generally. This value is close to the linear range on concentration-pressure curves and is thus not crowded from an osmotic perspective. I discuss the implications of a low crowding pressure inside cells for phase separation biology, buffer design, and proteome evolution. I also discuss a pressure-tension model for nuclear shape, where colloid osmotic pressure generated by nuclear protein import inflates the nucleus.

Indexed as

OsmosisAnimalsColloidsHydrodynamicsMacromolecular SubstancesModels, BiologicalSubcellular FractionsColloidsMacromolecular Substances

Identifiers

PMID30640588
PMCPMC6589563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.