ArticleJACS Au2025
Repulsive vs Attractive Crowding Distinctly Regulate TDP-43 Condensates through Region-specific Structural Dynamics.
Article in JACS Au, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Covalent Network Formation Rate Controls Depletion-Induced Supramolecular Assembly in Hybrid Double Network Hydrogels.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) is crucial for RNA processing and nucleocytoplasmic transport, and its pathological aggregation marks neurodegenerative disease. The intrinsically disordered, prion-like C-terminal domain (CTD) drives liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS). Using residue-level coarse-grained simulations, we systematically examine how distinct macromolecular crowding environments, including repulsive (steric) and attractive (interaction-based) crowding conditions, influence the phase behavior and internal organization of TDP-43 CTD condensates. Both crowder types preserve correlations between single-chain compaction, dimerization propensity, and macroscopic phase separation, yet act through different mechanisms: repulsive crowders promote condensation via excluded-volume entropic stabilization, whereas attractive crowders modulate assembly through competitive enthalpic interactions. Region-specific spatial and orientation analyses reveal a robust internal architecture in which α-helices are enriched in the condensate interior (aligned roughly parallel to the interface) while intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) populate the surface with broader, outward-facing orientations. Beyond these baseline trends, our region-specific orientation maps and contact-relaxation metrics show that the character of crowding actively resculpts condensate organization: repulsive crowders compact and centralize the helical network into a single dense core layer, whereas attractive crowders redistribute helices toward the interface by sequestering contacts. This establishes a structure-dynamics decoupling with strong but short-lived helix-helix contacts versus weaker yet more persistent IDR-IDR contacts, reconciling core stabilization with interfacial fluidity. Our results define crowding class as a tunable control knob for region-specific redistribution and dynamics, suggesting testable readouts and offering mechanistic links to physiological modulators such as RNA stoichiometry, ATP levels, chaperone engagement, and client size/permeability. Collectively, our findings uncover a regulatory principle by which macromolecular crowding modulates TDP-43 condensation through distinct entropic and enthalpic contributions, offering key mechanistic insights into condensate formation and dysregulation relevant to neurodegenerative diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.