ReviewJournal of cellular biochemistry2026
The Effect of Protein Tagging on Aggregation and Phase Separation.
Review in Journal of cellular biochemistry, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protein tags are widely used for purification, solubilization, detection, and imaging, yet they can substantially alter protein self-assembly. This interference is particularly significant for intrinsically disordered proteins and low-complexity domains, whose aggregation and phase separation are mediated by weak multivalent interactions that are easily disrupted by exogenous elements. In this review, we examine how affinity tags, solubility tags, fluorescent proteins, and chemical labels influence aggregation, amyloid formation, and liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS). We first classify recurring perturbation mechanisms into six primary categories: solubility enhancement, artificial multivalency, electrostatic interactions, local effects, metal coordination, and positional dependence. Crucially, these non-exclusive mechanisms often operate simultaneously within a single construct. We then review representative case studies across pathogenic amyloids, RNA-binding proteins, viral inclusions, functional amyloids, yeast prions, and membrane proteins. These examples demonstrate that tags alter assembly kinetics, phase boundaries, material properties, fibril morphology, oligomeric states, and observed phenotypes, rather than merely serving as neutral tools for detection. In some systems, tags suppress intrinsic assembly; in others, they promote non-native condensation or stabilize alternative aggregate states. Finally, we discuss practical experimental strategies to distinguish intrinsic protein behavior from construct-dependent effects, emphasizing matched comparisons, orthogonal validation, and the careful interpretation of measurements based on tag cleavage or fluorescence. Collectively, the evidence indicates that protein tags should be treated as experimental variables that shape assembly states rather than as inert technical additions.
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.