ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Rethinking bioinformatics in liquid-liquid phase separation: data resources, predictive models, and an event-centric perspective.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) has emerged as a fundamental mechanism underlying the formation and regulation of membraneless cellular compartments and is increasingly implicated in diverse physiological processes and diseases. Alongside rapid experimental and high-throughput advances, bioinformatics data resources and computational models have expanded substantially, enabling systematic cataloguing of LLPS-associated components and prediction of phase-separation behavior from molecular features. However, the resulting computational landscape remains highly fragmented. In this review, we provide a comprehensive and critical synthesis of bioinformatics resources and predictive modelling approaches for LLPS. We examine and compare major LLPS databases, highlighting differences in evidence types, curation strategies, coverage, and cross-resource inconsistencies that limit integrative analysis. We then survey computational models across core LLPS prediction tasks, encompassing more than 40 representative algorithms and tracing methodological evolution from classical machine learning to deep learning and large language model-based frameworks. By integrating these advances, we identify a fundamental mismatch between molecule-centric data abstractions and the inherently multicomponent, context-dependent organization of LLPS phenomena. We argue that future progress may benefit from event-centric frameworks that explicitly represent molecular assemblies, contextual conditions and observable phase behaviors, thereby providing a coherent foundation for next-generation LLPS datasets and computational models with improved mechanistic interpretability and translational relevance.
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.