Author Response

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study presents an important finding on human m6A methyltransferase complex (including METTL3, METTL14 and WTAP). The evidence supporting the claims of the authors is convincing, although the model and assays need to be further modified. The work will be of interest to biologists working on RNA epigenetics and cancer biology.

In mammals, a large methyltransferase complex (including METTL3, METTL14 and WTAP) deposits m6A across the transcriptome, and METTL3 serves as its catalytic core component. In this manuscript, the authors identified two cleaved forms of METTL3 and described the function of METTL3a (residues 239-580) in breast tumorigenesis. METTL3a mediates the assembly of METTL3-METTL14-WTAP complex, the global m6A deposition and breast cancer progression. Furthermore, the METTL3a-mTOR axis was uncovered to mediate the METTL3 cleavage, providing potential therapeutic target for breast cancer. This study is properly performed and the findings are very interesting; however, some problems with the model and assays need to be modified. It is widely known that METTL3 and METTL14 form a stable heterodimer with the stoichiometric ratio of 1:1 (Wang X et al. Nature 534, 575-578 (2016), Su S et al. Cell Res 32(11), 982994 (2022), Yan X et al. Cell Res 32(12), 1124-1127 (2022)), the numbers of METTL3 and METTL14 in the model of Fig 7P are not equivalent and need to be modified.

We thank for reviewer’s good suggestion. We have modified the model in Fig. 7P.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Yan et al. report that a cleaved form of METTL3 (termed METTL3a) plays an essential role in regulating the assembly of the METTL3-METTL14-WTAP complex. Depletion of METTL3a leads to reduced m6A level on TMEM127, an mTOR repressor, and subsequently decreased breast cancer cell proliferation. Mechanistically, METTL3a is generated via 26S proteasome in an mTOR-dependent manner.

The manuscript follows a smooth, logical flow from one result to the next, and most of the results are clearly presented. Specifically, the molecular interaction assays are welldesigned. If true, this model represents a significant addition to the current understanding of m6A-methyltransferase complex formation.

A few minor issues detailed below should be addressed to make the paper even more robust. The specific comments are contained below.

1) The existence of METTL3a and METTL3b.<br /> In this study, the author found the cleaved form of METTL3 in breast cancer patient tissues and breast cancer cell lines. Is it a specific event that only occurs in breast cancer? The author may examine the METTL3a in other cell lines if it is a common rule.

We thank reviewer for point this out. We discovered the cleaved form of METTL3 in breast cancer, and we further examined this cleaved METTL3 in other cell lines such as lung cancer cell lines, renal cancer cell lines, HCT116 and MEF (new Supplementary Figures 1A-1C), these data suggest that it is a common rule. Therefore, we speculate that METTL3a may be ubiquitiously expressed. We have added this part in the revised manuscript, please see Line 118-120.

2) Generation of METTL3a and METTL3b.

1) Figure 1 shows that METTL3a and METTL3b were generated from the C-terminal of full-length METTL3. Because the sequence of METTL3a is involved in the sequences of METTL3b, can METTL3b be further cleaved to produce METTL3a?

Although the sequence of METTL3a is involved in the sequences of METTL3b, overexpression of METTL3b in T47D, MDA-MB-231 and 293T cells did not show METTL3a expression in these cells (please see Figures 3A, 3C, 3G), suggesting that METTL3b can not be further cleaved to produce METTL3a, and the METTL3 cleavage may require its N-terminal region. We have added this in the discussion, please see Line 358 to 360.

2) Based on current data, the generation of METTL3a and METTL3b are separated. Are there any factors that affect the cleavage ratio between METTL3a and METTL3b?

We thank for reviewer’s excellent question. In this study, we show that both METTL3a and METTLb are produced through proteasomal cleavage, and both of them are positively regulated by the mTOR pathway. On the other hand, we indeed observed the differential cleavage ratios between METTL3a and METTL3b across different cell lines. For example, METTL3a/METTLb ratio was greater than 1 in MDA-MB-231 cells (see Figure 7C), less than 1 in T47D and 293T cell lines (see Figure 7A and 7B), and equal to 1 in MEF cells (see Figure 7O). Based on these results, we speculate that there may be some factors that control the cleavage ratio between METTL3a and METTL3b, which warrants further investigation. We have added this in the discussion, please see Line 374 to 379.

3) In Figure 2G, the author shows the result that incubation of the Δ198+Δ238 METTL3 protein with T47D cell lysates cannot produce the METTL3a and METTL3b variants. The author may also show the results that Δ198 METTL3 protein or Δ238 METTL3 protein incubates with T47D cell lysates, respectively.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we had performed in vitro cleavage assays by incubation of METTL3-Δ238 or METTL3-Δ198 with T47D cell lysates, and had incorporated this result in the revised manuscript. Please see our new Supplementary Figure 3A.

4) As well as many results published in previous studies, the in vitro methylation assay shows that WT METTL3 is capable of methylating RNA probe (figure 2H). The main point of this study is that METTL3a is required for the METTL3-METTL14 assembly. However, the absence of METTL3a in the in vitro system did not inhibit METTL3METTL14 methylation activity. Moreover, the presence of METTL3a even resulted in a weak m6A level.

The main point of this study is that METTL3a is required for the METTL3WTAP interaction, but dispensable for the METTL3-METTL14 assembly (see Figure 4A-4B). In this in vitro methylation assays, METTL3 and METTL14 is capable of methylating RNA probe in the absent of WTAP. In this condition, we found that METTL3 WT as well as its different variants (METTL3-Δ238, METTL3-Δ198, METTL3b and METTL3a) except the catalytically dead mutant METTL3 APPA showed methylation activity in vitro.

5) In Figure 4A, the author suggests that WTAP cannot be immunoprecipitated with METTL3a and 3b because WTAP interacted with the N-terminal of METTL3. If this assay is performed in WT cells, the endogenous full-length METTL3 may help to form the complex. In this case, WTAP is supposed to be co-immunoprecipitated.

We thank reviewer for point this out. METTL3 interacts with WTAP through its N-terminal (1-33aa) (1). Consistently, we find that the two cleaved forms METTL3a and METTL3b which lack the N-terminal region are not able to bind with WTAP. In Figure 4A, we overexpressed METTL3 WT as well as its different variants METTL3-Δ238, METTL3-Δ198, METTL3b and METTL3a respectively in WT cells, and compared the binding ability with WTAP or METTL14 across these overexpressed METTL3 variants. We acknowledge that the exogenous METTL3a and METTL3b interact with endogenous full-length METTL3, and the endogenous full-length METTL3 may help them to form the complex with WTAP. But in fact, the exogenous expression levels of METTL3a and METTL3b are much higher than that of endogenous full-length METTL3 (see Figure 3A and 3C). In this case, METTL3a or METTL3b predominantly interacts with itself, METTL3, METTL14 or other potential interacting proteins through its C-terminal region, this may greatly dilute the condition for the interaction between WTAP and endogenous full-length METTL3. Moreover, in Figure 4A, the comparison is among overexpressed METTL3 variants, the week indirect interactions through much lower expression levels of endogenous protein are probably not comparable to those direct interactions between overexpressed METTL3 variants and WTAP.

Reference:

1) Schöller, E., Weichmann, F., Treiber, T., Ringle, S., Treiber, N., Flatley, A., Feederle, R., Bruckmann, A., and Meister, G. (2018). Interactions, localization, and phosphorylation of the m6A generating METTL3–METTL14–WTAP complex. Rna 24, 499-512

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major points:

1) It is widely known that METTL3 and METTL14 form a stable heterodimer with the stoichiometric ratio of 1:1 (Wang X et al. Nature 534, 575-578 (2016), Su S et al. Cell Res 32(11), 982-994 (2022), Yan X et al. Cell Res 32(12), 1124-1127 (2022)), the numbers of METTL3 and METTL14 in the model of Fig 7P are not equivalent and need to be modified.

We thank for reviewer’s good suggestion. We have modified the model in Fig. 7P.

2) The in vitro methylation activity was detected by the m6A antibody, which has limited linear range. The MTase-Glo{trade mark, serif} Methyltransferase Assay is a SAMdependent enzyme assay with wide applications (Please refer to the references below).

Could this assay be performed by authors?

Wilkinson AW et al. Nature 565(7739), 372-376 (2019).

Yu D et al. Nucleic Acids Res 49(20),11629-11642 (2021).

Yan X et al. Cell Res 32(12), 1124-1127 (2022).

Chen J et al. Nat Commun 13(1), 3257 (2022).

Thanks for reviewer’s good suggestion. We had performed the in vitro methylation assay by using MTase-Glo kit, and the data is consistent with the dot blot results. Please see the new Figure 2H-J.

3) When expressed alone in mammalian cell lines, METTL14 is unstable and is easily contaminated with endogenous METTL3 during purification (Yang W et al. Nat Cell Biol 16(2), p.191-8 (2014), Fig 1e). In Fig 2I, Co-expressing METTL3 and METTL14 maybe a good choice.

We thank for reviewer’s good suggestion. In fact, we co-expressed METTL3 and METTL14 in this in vitro methylation assay in Fig 2I (new Figure 2J in the revised version), METTL3-Flag or its mutant with Flag tag and METTL14-Flag were co-transfected into 293T cells, and co-purified by using Flag M2 magnetic beads from the cell lysates. We have added these details in the indicated method section, please see Line 574-585.

Other minor points:

1) In Fig 5D, the protein domain information of METTL3 and relevant references need to be added (Su S et al. Cell Res 32(11), 982-994 (2022), Fig 6g; Yan X et al. Cell Res 32(12), 1124-1127 (2022), Fig 1a).

We have added these references in the revised manuscript.

2) In Fig 5, would METTL3b contribute to the METTL3-METTL3 interaction?

Our data showed that METTL3a but not METTL3b is responsible for the METTL3-WTAP interaction, breast cancer cell proliferation and the m6A modification. Then, we investigated the mechanism of how METTL3a regulates the METTL3-WTAP interaction, and found that METTL3a is essential for METTL3-METTL3 interaction, which is a prerequisite step for WTAP recruitment in MTC complex. In this case, we speculate that METTL3b is not required for the METTL3-METTL3 interaction. Indeed, through Co-IP assays,we found that METTL3b has no effect on the METTL3-METTL3 interaction (new supplementary Figure 4D), which is consistent with our above data showing that METTL3b is dispensable for the METTL3-WTAP interaction. We have added this comment in Page 6, Line 226 to 228.

3) In Fig 3F, the color in the legend and figure is inconsistent.

We have corrected the inconsistent color in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1) In Figure 5D, the construction details of METTL3-HA and Flag should have been included in the method section. Are these tag sequences in the N-terminal of METTL3 protein?

These tags are all in the C-terminal of METTL3. We have added the construction details of these plasmids in the method section. Please see Line 434.

2) In Figure 7A, the labels of the inhibitors are overlapped with the figures.

We have corrected the labels of the inhibitors in Figure 7A in the revised manuscript.

Note: This rebuttal was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)): ____ *A significant criticism of the paper is an assumption that readers will be familiar with all of the findings in the author's previous 2016 paper and the PGL-1 papers by Aoki et al. Minimal context is given for each approach. *

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

*Some conclusions are not well supported and require further analysis, proper controls, and more extensive descriptions of the experiments performed. *

We have addressed the reviewer’s concerns as detailed below.

Most importantly, the central conclusion and title of the paper is that composition can buffer the dynamics of individual proteins within liquid-like condensates. In other words, in vitro condensation assays often do not recapitulate LLPS behavior in vivo. That said, the findings in this study would be significantly strengthened and complemented by observing endogenously tagged PGL-3 and PGL-3 mutants in living worms, considering the efficiency of using CRISPR in C. elegans to insert tags and make precise mutations.

The original manuscript already contained data where we microinjected wild-type PGL-3 and mutant PGL-3 proteins (recombinantly purified) into adult C. elegans gonads to assay how the P granule phase supports diffusion of these proteins.

In the revised version, we now include additional data which shows “dynamics buffering” in transgenic worms generated using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Briefly, we used CRISPR/Cas9 to generate transgenic C. elegans which expresses PGL-3-mEGFP or PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP from the native pgl-3 locus. In vitro, wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP protein generates liquid-like condensates. On the other hand, the recombinantly purified PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP protein generates condensates that are non-dynamic. In contrast to these observations in vitro, both wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP and PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP show similar dynamics (half-time of FRAP recovery) within P granules in vivo.

*To improve readability, the introduction to P granules should be expanded, and include the reasons for looking at the nematode-specific PGL-3 protein among all the other known P granule proteins. A recap of previous findings on PGL-3 phase separation, in vivo and in vitro, is warranted, starting with the significant results of Saha et al 2016. Setting up the investigative questions in the context of recent work on PGL-1 (Aoki, et al) is also necessary. *

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

The physiological concentration of PGL-3 should be more transparent, including why some experiments in this study are done at physiological concentrations while others are not. Describing why salt concentrations, crowding agents, and protein abundance are similar or different for each experiment is necessary and relevant. For example, after showing in Figure 1 that PGL-3 protein phase separates, the paragraph starting on line 161 says that it was previously shown that PGL-3 doesn't phase separate at physiological concentrations without RNA. One has to go back to Figure 1 to realize it was done differently than Figure 2 and Saha 2016.

The concentrations of PGL-3 protein and use of crowding agents (if any) have already been specified within figures or figure legends. Salt concentrations used are specified within figure legends or materials and methods section.

We have added the following paragraph to the materials and methods section of the revised manuscript.

“Saha et al. 2016 showed that at physiological concentrations (approx. 1 mM), the PGL-3 protein is unable to phase separate into condensates. At these concentrations, mRNA promotes phase separation of PGL-3. To assay for mRNA-dependence of condensate assembly, it is therefore essential to use physiological concentrations of the PGL-3 protein or mutants (e.g. Figure 2). However, these condensates are generally too small to assay rate of internal rearrangement of PGL-3 molecules within condensates using fluorescence recovery after photobleaching experiments. Therefore, to generate large condensates for measuring internal rearrangement of PGL-3 or mutant molecules, we primarily used higher concentrations of these proteins where binding to RNA is not essential for phase separation. However, to mimic the in vivo P granule phase as closely as possible, we generally added constituent proteins in proportion to their in vivo abundance estimated in Saha et al. 2016.”

The added paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript may be helpful to the readers. * *

*Statements in the same paragraph like "in contrast to full-length PGL-3, mRNA does not support phase separation..." should be qualified by stating the concentration observed, with or without salts or other crowding agents. Similarly, line 230 "suggests that interactions involving the disordered C-terminal region of PGL-3 are not essential for the fast dynamics" and should be qualified with "at non-physiological concentrations and with XX crowding agents or salt concentration." It would be more consistent if physiological concentrations were consistent from figure to figure, as extra variables weaken some of the stated conclusions. *

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, we feel the statements (without full experimental details within main text) help convey the conceptual essence of the findings better. Of course, all these statements contain reference to figures or prior publications which provide relevant details about experimental conditions.

*The 2010 review reference stating that there are 40 P granule enriched proteins is outdated. More recent reviews put the number much higher. This is relevant because the approach to put PGL-3 in a more physiological environment by including just PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA with the condensate assays, out of ~100 P granule enriched proteins, may not be sufficient to conclude "that the influence of complex composition on dynamics is modest" (line 223), or imply that the multicomponent nature of the P granule is reconstituted by adding these components (line 355). *

We revised the text to indicate that P granules contain approx. 70 proteins and added appropriate references.

• *

Based on current information of constitutive P granule components (PGL-1, PGL-3, GLH-1, GLH-2, GLH-3, GLH-4, DEPS-1, MIP-1 and mRNA), (Kawasaki et al, 1998, 2004; Spike et al, 2008a, 2008b; Price et al, 2021; Cipriani et al, 2021; Phillips & Updike, 2022) we reconstituted P granule-like phase in vitro with mRNA, PGL- and GLH- proteins that likely constitute the most abundant components within P granules in vivo (based on concentration estimates in Saha et al. 2016).

We do appreciate the reviewer’s comment that more components can be added to our in vitro reconstitution in addition to the limited set of components used in our study. However, we feel it is interesting to observe that a limited set of components can support dynamics buffering (the main message of the paper). Further, the complementary in vivo experiments show that the P granule phase can also support dynamics buffering.

*Figure 1C needs to include PGL-3(370-693) in the analysis. Figure 1E is also incomplete without a comparison of FRAP recovery between PGL-3(1-452) and full PGL-3 as the control.

*

Fig. 1c already includes data with PGL-3 (370-693) [top row, central panel]. FRAP recovery data with full-length PGL-3 is already available in Supplementary Fig. 2c, g.

*Figure 4C is missing an essential control where PGL-3 and S1 FRAP is performed without PGL-1, GLH-1, and mRNA. *

In the revised version, we have added Supplementary Fig. 5f, where FRAP recovery of the following condensates are plotted together: 1) PGL-3 alone, 2) S1 alone, 3) PGL-3 + PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA, 4) S1 + PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA.

*It would also help show sup Fig4A in the main figure to show concentration dependence. *

We revised Fig. 4 to address the reviewer’s suggestion.

Consider adding subtitles to supplementary figures.

We considered the suggestion but felt it may not be essential.

*M&M should include an explanation for statistical analysis *

We added a paragraph describing statistical analysis within the Materials and Methods section.

*CROSS-CONSULTATION COMMENTS I am also in agreement with the comments and critiques of reviewers 2 and 3.

* Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)): The paper by Saha and colleagues investigate the in vitro liquid-liquid phase separation propensity of a P granule protein PGL-3 and its structural domains. The findings largely replicate and support the phase-separation properties of a paralogous protein called PGL-1, as recently described by Aoki et al. 2021. Furthermore, they show that the dynamics demonstrated by recombinant PGL-3 may be maintained or buffered by the complex composition of P granules.

Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

*Jelenic et al. describe the effect of partner proteins on the FRAP dynamics of recombinant PGL-3 protein and variants in in vitro condensates and C elegans p-granules. The study shows that the N terminal a-helical dimerization domains is required for condensate formation and modulate of it alters aggregation and the FRAP dynamics of its condensates. Interestingly, a construct including the entire IDR region (370-693) by itself does not phase separate on its own at these conditions. The K126E K129E mutant (known previously to disrupt dimerization) and the deletion mutant abrogate llps. A mutant construct that shuffles the sequence in the region 423-453 called S1 here reduces the helicity and the condensate FRAP dynamics but recovered in the presence of a few P granule components. Also, the reduced dynamics of partially unfolded PGL-3 condensates are also rescued by the p-granule components to a certain degree of the unfolded PGL3 concentrations. This threshold concentration for recovering the condensate dynamics is further reduced in the helix reducing S1 mutant, which is also dependent on the number and the nature of P granule components.

Overall, the study aims to probe how "composition can buffer protein dynamics within liquid-like condensates" - yet several underlying aspects of the study do not fully support that conclusion. The introduction does not sufficiently introduce the known structural information of the two dimerization domains in C elegans PGL proteins for which structures are known. The region is discussed as "alpha helical" but really there are two evolutionarily conserved independently folding dimerization domains (referring to the mutants as "reduced alpha helicity" is not helpful - these are mutations that destabilize a folded domain).*

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

*Additionally, the abstract and introduction ignore the aspects of aggregation (touched on in discussion) - this is likely what the disruption to the helical region in residue 450 region is doing (the helix is not on the dimer interface based on homology / sequence identity to the crystal structure of PGL-1 central dimerization domain. *

We think elucidating the molecular mechanism of apparent aggregation of PGL-3 (D425-452) could be an interesting direction for future investigation. Here, we focused our analysis predominantly on the mutant S1 since it generates liquid-like condensates with ~20- fold slower dynamics (compared to wild-type) in contrast to non-dynamic condensates/aggregates. Therefore, influence of other P granule components on the dynamics of PGL-3 in liquid-like condensates is easier to address using the mutant S1 rather than PGL-3 (D425-452). We didn’t find evidence that S1 aggregates as we did not detect aggregates of S1 molecules using fluorescence confocal microscopy and the slow dynamics in condensates of S1 does not change significantly over 24 h (Supplementary Fig. 3f).

However, in the revised version, we now include additional in vivo data with C. elegans expressing the aggregation-prone PGL-3 (D425-452)-mEGFP. Briefly, we used CRISPR/Cas9 to generate transgenic C. elegans which expresses PGL-3-mEGFP or PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP from the native pgl-3 locus. In vitro, wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP protein generates liquid-like condensates. On the other hand, the recombinantly purified PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP protein generates condensates that are non-dynamic. In contrast to these observations in vitro, both wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP and PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP show similar dynamics (half-time of FRAP recovery) within P granules in vivo.

Finally, the "dynamics buffering" is not really clearly established and could also be explained as small concentrations of aggregated proteins act like clients while increasing the concentration results in aggregation and "cross linking" in the entire droplet - and this concentration is never achieved in the in worm experiments so it is not clear. In other words, the change in FRAP dynamics not observed in worms is perhaps not surprising if small amount of recombinant proteins are incorporated into the granules. *

*

Data with the S1 mutant establishes that dynamics buffering can be observed in condensates with different sets of additives both in vitro (Fig. 5a, b) and in vivo (Fig. 4a, b). Further, data with condensates of S1 containing the additives PGL-3 (K126E K129E) or S1 (K126E K129E) demonstrate that dynamics (half-time of FRAP recovery) within S1 condensates, and in turn “dynamics buffering” depend on inter-molecular interactions. With respect to the hypothesis proposed by the reviewer, we did not detect aggregates within S1 condensates using confocal fluorescence microscopy.

In contrast to S1 condensates, condensates containing partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP together with PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA showed spatial inhomogeneities in fluorescence signal throughout the condensate (Fig. 4g). We have not tested if areas with higher fluorescence signal represent aggregates. It is a possibility that the partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP fluorescence signal becomes more homogeneous if higher concentrations of additives (PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA) are used. However, the presented data demonstrate the significant effect of the P granule components (PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA) on the FRAP recovery rate of partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP in condensates (compare figures Fig. 3e and Fig. 4g).

However, consistent with dynamics buffering, the P granule phase in vivo supports wild-type dynamics of different PGL-3 constructs over a range of concentrations - PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP at physiological concentration (CRISPR transgenic strain, Fig. 4e) or at higher concentrations (microinjected S1 and partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP, Fig. 4b).

• *

*It is also not clear what the mechanism of the changes is - is the protein driven to fold more properly (despite S1 disruption of its conserved sequence) inside the condensate? Does it still self interact and act as a dimerization domain? Does this change disrupt interactions? *

We agree with the reviewer that identifying the precise structural changes of the S1 protein within the condensate vs. dilute phase could be an interesting direction for future investigation. However, we have already discussed the issues raised by the reviewer in the original manuscript.

“Our data is consistent with the model that other regions of S1 molecules cooperate with residues 425-452 (shuffled) to generate stronger inter-molecular interactions. For instance, addition of the mutant S1 (K126E K129E) enhances dynamics of S1 within condensates in contrast to maintaining the slower dynamics observed within condensates of S1 alone. This suggests that the interactions disrupted by the mutations K126E and K129E also contribute to slow S1 dynamics. One possibility is that interactions involving the residues K126 and K129 favor S1 conformations that enhance 425-452 (shuffled)-dependent interactions. Indeed, the mutations K126E K129E have been reported to interfere with interactions among N-termini of PGL-3 molecules (Aoki et al, 2021). While two self-association domains within the α-helical N-terminus of PGL-3 have been mapped (Aoki et al, 2021, 2016), structural insights into those associations are limited. However, PGL-3 shares significant sequence similarity with another protein PGL-1. Crystal structures are available for fragments of the PGL-1 protein that show the two self-association domains at the N-terminus are predominantly α-helical and globular in nature (Aoki et al, 2016, 2021). Therefore, one possibility is that shuffling the sequence 425-452 of PGL-3 or heat-induced unfolding of PGL-3 exposes hydrophobic residues that become available to participate in inter-molecular interactions.”

What is the real mechanism by which PGL-3 phase separates if not via the disordered domains? *

*

We agree with the reviewer that elucidating the detailed mechanism of phase separation of PGL-3 is an interesting direction for future investigation. However, we feel this is not required to support the main message of this manuscript.

Throughout the manuscript, the term "dynamics" is used to indicate FRAP, but it would be better to define what is meant (diffusion of PGL-3 in condensates) instead of using dynamics a term that could mean many things. Secondly, FRAP cannot directly measure liquidity etc (see recent critiques by McSwiggen elife 2019, etc) so it is better to be cautious in the claims. Finally, discussing "dyanmics buffering" adds more terminology where it is not needed - perhaps say "changes to diffusion of PGL-3 in condensates".

We feel it is useful to introduce a term that describes our observation. To our knowledge, our observation is novel and therefore requires a new term to describe it.

However, we do appreciate the concern raised by the reviewer. We used a more generic term “dynamics buffering” in contrast to the more specific “diffusion buffering” since we did not directly estimate diffusion behavior at the ‘single-molecule’ level. However, we already described what we mean by “dynamics buffering” in the text as follows.

“We used condensates of similar size for our analysis (average ± 1 SD of diameter of condensates are 6.4 ± 1.7 mm (Fig. 5a) and 5.9 ± 0.4 mm (Fig. 5b)). Therefore, dynamics buffering here is likely to represent similar diffusion rates of S1 within condensates.”

• *

*The "N-terminus" is not 65% of the protein. One could define this as the N-terminal domain, but again there are two clear folded domains in the first 65% of the protein and this needs to be described better. *

We revised the text to replace the terms “N-terminus” and “N-terminal domain” to “N-terminal fragment”.

*The description of "stickers" and the references to tau and hnRNPA1 are confusing as this is a predominantly ordered domain while those are IDRs. *

• *

We feel this is important as it aids discussing our work in the context of current literature describing the mechanisms of macromolecular phase separation.

The suggestion in the discussion that "P granule components support dynamics by participating in intermolecular interactions wth PGL-3-mEGFP molecules" is not well supported because no interaction assays are performed and no mutaitons are made that disrupt these interactions to test this.

Indeed, we have not conducted interaction assays or mutational analysis to directly test this. However, our detailed analysis with the S1 mutant supports this suggestion.

While partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP molecules lose 30% of a-helicity, the a-helicity of the S1 mutant is reduced by 15% compared to wild-type PGL-3. Data with S1 and partially unfolded PGL-3-mEGFP molecules show that loss of a-helicity correlates with slower diffusion of protein molecules within condensates. Using the mutants PGL-3 (K126E K129E) and S1 (K126E K129E), we show that diffusion rate of S1 molecules within condensates depend on inter-molecular interactions, and presence of other P granule components support faster diffusion rate of S1 molecules within condensates. Therefore, we feel it is safe to speculate that intermolecular interactions with P granule components can support dynamics of a “more unfolded” (compared to S1) version of PGL-3 molecule. * *

*More detailed analysis of some of the claims: Claim 1: An a-helical region mediates the phase separation of PGL-3, and the C-terminal disordered region by itself does not phase separate. The N-terminal dimerization is essential for LLPS. The C-terminal IDR interactions with mRNA facilitate the LLPS. Comments: The authors show sufficient experimental data using microscopy and FRAP on truncated constructs with the N-terminal and C-terminal regions - but see above regarding how these are described - a proper domain structure with the folded domains shown and the RGG motifs highlighted should be added and integrated throughout the discussion. *

In the revised version of the manuscript, we described the predicted PGL-3 domains within a paragraph in the introduction: “The interactions that support phase separation of the PGL-3 protein remains unclear. Structural studies on the orthologous PGL-1 protein revealed two dimerization domains. This raises the possibility that PGL-3 also contains similar dimerization domains, and phase separation depends on interactions involving these domains.”

Our Fig. 1a already includes the schematic representation of PGL-3 with predicted N-terminal and Central Dimerization domains and RGG repeats.

*They show that the N-terminus is necessary and adequate for LLPS, and the C-terminus by itself does not phase separate. But, how does the N-terminal domains phase separate? This is not explained - what are the interactions? *

• *

Also, a di-mutant (K126E K129E) that is known, and also authors use SEC-MALS to show their N-terminal construct is consistent with the published results. Disrupting the n-terminal dimerization prevents phase separation, suggesting the importance of these residues in the N-terminus for self-assembly and LLPS. The Microscopy data backs the claim that the mRNA-mediated LLPS is facilitated by binding with C-terminus. However, the m-RNA binding to IDR is not sufficient for LLPS. Yet, the authors do not explain how higher salt prevents phase separation - again the mechanism of phase separation is unclear. Is it multivalent interaction of the two dimerization domains? A basic model (that is tested) would be important.

We agree with the reviewer that elucidating the detailed mechanism of phase separation of PGL-3 is an interesting direction for future investigation. However, we feel this is not required to support the main message of this manuscript.

However, our manuscript already provides some relevant insights as follows.

“To investigate the underlying mechanism further, we began by testing if the N-terminal α-helical region of PGL-3 can self-associate. Our analysis using size exclusion chromatography followed by multi-angle light scattering (SEC-MALS) showed that this PGL-3 fragment 1-452 forms a dimer (Supplementary Fig. 2f). Mutation of two residues (K126E K129E) have been shown to interfere with interactions among the N-termini of PGL-3 molecules (Aoki et al, 2021). We mutated these two residues within the full-length PGL-3 protein (K126E K129E) (Fig. 1a) and found that this mutant PGL-3 (K126E K129E) protein cannot phase separate even at high protein concentrations up to ~130 µM (Fig. 1b, c). Addition of mRNA does not trigger phase separation of this protein at physiological concentrations either (Fig. 2a, b). Taken together, our data is consistent with a model where association among folded N-termini of PGL-3 molecules is essential for phase separation.”

A likely possibility is that phase separation of PGL-3 depends on electrostatic inter-molecular interactions among the folded N-terminal fragment of PGL-3 molecules. Therefore, high salt prevents phase separation.

Are the tags removed to ensure that phase separation is not caused by tags or remaining linker regions? Is the protein purified to be without nucleic acid contamination or other purity metrics?

Most of the experiments were done with only 5% of total protein tagged with 6x-His-mEGFP. No additional tags were present on the constructs. For recombinant expression and purification, proteins were cloned such that it is possible to remove the 6xHis-mEGFP tag following treatment with TEV protease. Following removal of the 6xHis-mEGFP tag, the residual linker is just two amino acid residues long. We used 100% tagged-protein for our experiments only in very few cases (indicated in the figure legends).

To demonstrate purity of recombinant proteins, SDS-PAGE gels with all protein constructs used in this study are shown in Supplementary Fig. 1.

To minimize contamination of nucleic acids, we treated samples with Benzonase during the course of purification.

To assess the extent of nucleic acid contamination, the ratio of absorbance at 260 nm and 280 nm (A260/A280) was monitored. In exceptional cases with high A260/A280 values, we analyzed samples further by purifying RNA from the sample using RNA purification kit (Qiagen) and found that RNA represented 1% or less of the sample mass.* *

Claim2: The N-terminal a-helical region modulates the dynamics within condensates. The IDR region has minimal effect on the fast dynamics of PGL-3. Comments: The authors show that the full-length PGL-3 condensates have modest influence of components by comparing the FRAP half times with or without the P granule components, including mRNA. However, have the authors tried this in the presence of mRNAs for the constructs lacking the IDRs as they have several RGG domains and bind with mRNA and are likely to change the dynamics.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, this experiment is not essential to support the claim made in the context of homotypic condensates of PGL-3 : “The N-terminal a-helical region modulates the dynamics within condensates. The IDR region has minimal effect on the fast dynamics of PGL-3.”

*The authors report the importance of the N-terminal a-helical region by making a construct that lacks/disrupts a part of the helices lowers the thermal stability and significantly lowers the dynamics of the condensates. Also unfolding of helices is shown to reduce the dynamics. One primary concern is whether these "rescued" protein dynamics imply protein functionality. *

An assay of “functionality” e.g. an enzymatic activity of the PGL-3 protein is not available.

However, we compared the fecundity of C. elegans worms expressing from the native pgl-3 locus, PGL-3-mEGFP or the mutant protein PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP, to assay the functionality of P granules in these strains. We found that worms of both genotypes produced similar number of offspring (Fig. 4d). This suggests that deletion of residues 425-452 of PGL-3 does not result in significant loss of function of P granules.

Are these semi denatured proteins refolded in the presence of P-granule components?

We feel that identifying the precise structural changes of the semi-denatured PGL-3 proteins within the condensate vs. dilute phase could be an interesting direction for future investigation.

Finally, it is not clear why the authors chose to disrupt folding of the central dimerization domain?

The manuscript included a paragraph to describe the rationale.

“This suggests that interactions involving the disordered C-terminal region of PGL-3 are not essential for the fast dynamics within condensates. Therefore, we addressed the role of the N-terminal α-helical region (1-452) in driving dynamics. In order to avoid engineering mutations that result in significant misfolding of PGL-3 and concomitant loss of its ability to phase separate, we focused our mutational analysis close to the junction of the folded N-terminus and the disordered C-terminus of PGL-3. Surprisingly, we found that a full-length PGL-3 construct (D425-452) that lacks only 27 residues phase separates into condensates that are non-dynamic (Fig. 3a, c). Sequence analysis of the PGL-3 protein predicts that this region 425-452 spans two α-helices (one complete helix and fraction of a second helix) (Supplementary Fig. 3d). We generated a PGL-3 construct (hereafter called ‘S1’) (Fig. 3a) in which the sequence in the region, 425-452, is shuffled while keeping the overall amino acid composition unchanged. We found that S1 phase separates into condensates that are 20- fold less dynamic than with wild-type PGL-3 (Fig. 3d, Supplementary Fig. 3c).”

Saying that "reduced alpha-helicity of PGL-3 correlates with slower dynamics in condensates" may be factual in these assays but "correlation" should be expanded upon to include mechanism and to me it seems that the statement should read "aggregation of PGL-3 causes slower dynamics in condensates" (both the partially destabilized mutant and the fully unfolded WT show similar effects perhaps to different degrees).

We feel that identifying the precise structural changes of the semi-denatured PGL-3 proteins within the condensate vs. dilute phase could be an interesting direction for future investigation.

We did not use the term "aggregation" since we did not detect aggregates of S1 molecules using fluorescence confocal microscopy.

*CROSS-CONSULTATION COMMENTS I agree with the other reviewer's comments and critiques, I have concerns about the biological relevance and also the biophysical mechanisms. Reflecting on the other reviewers' comments, the papers could provide more depth in one or both of these areas to come to firm conclusions that are either revealing about PGL biology or elucidate a (possible) general biophysical mechanism. *

In the revised version, we now include additional data which shows “dynamics buffering” in transgenic worms generated using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Briefly, we used CRISPR/Cas9 to generate transgenic C. elegans which expresses PGL-3-mEGFP or PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP from the native pgl-3 locus. In vitro, wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP protein generates liquid-like condensates. On the other hand, the recombinantly purified PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP protein generates condensates that are non-dynamic. In contrast to these observations in vitro, both wild-type PGL-3-mEGFP and PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP show similar dynamics (half-time of FRAP recovery) within P granules in vivo.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)): *Hence, although the authors shows how inclusion of other components can alter the one protein component phase separation, this is done with entirely artificial means of destabilizing the fold of one of the domains which likely leads to aggregation. So the true impact of the work is hard to understand because the mutations impact on the basic biophysical properties of the domain (stability, interaction) are not completely characterized and the reason for disrupting this folding is not clear. *

A major impact of our work is elucidation of a novel “dynamics buffering” property within biomolecular condensates in vitro. Our in vivo data is consistent with this finding.

• *

We have chosen two orthogonal ways of perturbing the PGL-3 protein (i.e. mutations and temperature-dependent unfolding) to assay the effect on diffusion rate against different levels of perturbation (e.g. 30% loss of a-helicity in heat-denatured PGL-3-mEGFP vs. 15% loss of a-helicity in the S1 mutant, compared to wild-type PGL-3). Studying the phase separation behavior of these “artificially-generated” constructs provided the understanding that dynamics of PGL-3 in condensates depends on inter-molecular interactions, and slower dynamics generally correlate with stronger inter-molecular interactions. Further, interactions among two or more P granule components can buffer against large change in dynamics / aggregation within the P granule phase. These insights may lay the groundwork for addressing how more “natural” modifications (e.g., post-translational modifications, high local concentration of “sticky” molecules) may influence dynamics within biomolecular condensates in vivo.

Based on current knowledge of P granule composition, chaperone proteins (e.g. heat-shock family proteins) do not show abundant concentration within P granules. However, it is unclear if chaperone proteins are completely excluded from the P granule phase. Therefore, we speculate that weak interactions among two or more non-chaperone proteins contribute significantly to “dynamics buffering” within the P granule phase in vivo.

In the discussion section of the manuscript, we had speculated that “dynamics buffering” may potentially explain observations reported in the nucleolus: “Similarly, interactions among components could be a potential mechanism of storage of misfolding-prone proteins in non-aggregated state within the liquid-like nucleolus under stress in vivo (Frottin et al, 2019).”

Our finding is also relevant in the context of synthetic biology with applications that require steady diffusion rate of macromolecules during biochemical reactions within biomolecular condensates.

• *

My field of expertise is protein phase separation and protein structure. * *

Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

Summary: P granules are liquid condensates found in the developing germlines and embryos of C. elegans. Prior work by the authors and others have established P granules as a tractable model to investigate the basic biophysical properties of liquid condensates. Much of the prior published work focused on specific P granule scaffold proteins, PGL-1 and PGL-3. How attributes of these PGL proteins and the effect of other P granule components affect condensate properties is not fully understood. Here, Jelenic, et al. probe the biophysical properties of PGL-3. Using recombinant protein, they show that an N-terminal, alpha-helical region of PGL-3 is sufficient for liquid condensate formation and that N-terminal assembly is required for this formation. Creation of a scrambled alpha-helical region in PGL-3 and heat treatment affects PGL-3 fluidity. This fluidity can be "rescued" in vivo and in vitro with the inclusion of other P granule factors, including wildtype PGL-3, PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA. The authors note an inverse correlation between fluidity and mutant PGL-3 fluorescent intensity. They propose a model that heterotypic compositions of condensates can buffer their fluidity against components with stronger multivalent interactions. *

MAJOR: 1. PGL-3 is a fantastic model to study the biophysical properties of a liquid condensate. But as the authors address in their discussion, the S1 mutant will likely affect the central domain folding, at its minimum causing exposure of a hydrophobic surface not typically exposed in biology. These helices are found at the terminal portion of the domain determined in the crystal structure and as depicted in the authors' Figure 1A. While the cause of S1's enhanced molecular interactions does not affect the in vitro work presented in this manuscript, it does affect how the conclusions connect to the biological nature of P granules and liquid condensates more generally. *

We have chosen two orthogonal ways of perturbing the PGL-3 protein (i.e. mutations and temperature-dependent unfolding) to assay the effect on diffusion rate against different levels of perturbation (e.g. 30% loss of a-helicity in heat-denatured PGL-3-mEGFP vs. 15% loss of a-helicity in the S1 mutant, compared to wild-type PGL-3). Studying the phase separation behavior of these “artificial” constructs provided the understanding that dynamics of PGL-3 in condensates depends on inter-molecular interactions, and slower dynamics generally correlate with stronger inter-molecular interactions. Further, interactions among two or more P granule components can buffer against large change in dynamics / aggregation within the P granule phase. These insights may lay the groundwork for addressing how more “natural” modifications (e.g., post-translational modifications, high local concentration of “sticky” molecules) may influence dynamics within biomolecular condensates in vivo.

Based on current knowledge of P granule composition, chaperone proteins (e.g. heat-shock family proteins) do not show abundant concentration within P granules. However, it is unclear if chaperone proteins are completely excluded from the P granule phase. Therefore, we speculate that weak interactions among two or more non-chaperone proteins contribute significantly to “dynamics buffering” within the P granule phase in vivo.

In the discussion section of the manuscript, we had speculated that “dynamics buffering” may potentially explain observations reported in the nucleolus: “Similarly, interactions among components could be a potential mechanism of storage of misfolding-prone proteins in non-aggregated state within the liquid-like nucleolus under stress in vivo (Frottin et al, 2019).”

Our finding is also relevant in the context of synthetic biology with applications that require steady diffusion rate of macromolecules during biochemical reactions within biomolecular condensates.

• Recombinant PGL-3 experiments added PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA simultaneously and measured fluidity. It will be interesting to know which components contribute to fluidity and whether fluidity enhancement of each component is dependent on one another. Addition experiments with each component should be included and/or at least discussed in the main text. *

Our data with S1-mEGFP or PGL-3-mEGFP (pre-heated at 50°C) proteins microinjected into C. elegans gonads, and the transgenic strain expressing PGL-3(D425-452)-mEGFP from the pgl-3 locus showed that the P granule phase can support fast dynamics of these mutant PGL-3 constructs. Since P granules have a complex composition, one possibility is that fast dynamics of these constructs is supported by interactions involving many P granule components. We found that using only a limited set of P granule components (PGL-1, GLH-1 and mRNA) can buffer dynamics of S1 in condensates in vitro.

In absence of a systematic analysis investigating the individual role of approx. 70 P granule proteins in buffering S1 dynamics in condensates in vitro, we have claimed in the text that dynamics-buffering of S1 in condensates is supported by interactions among two or more components. However, we do appreciate the reviewer’s comment and feel it would be interesting to investigate the contribution of individual P granule components towards fluidity in future studies. We have discussed this in the ‘Discussion’ section of the manuscript.

• The biological relevance of PGL-1, GLH-1, and mRNA were not discussed in the main text. How these factors contribute to P granule assembly and function should be mentioned in the Introduction or Results. *

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

*MINOR: 1. Line 20, "most non-membrane-bound compartments...have complex composition": Are there examples of condensates that do not have complex composition? *

Not all non-membrane-bound compartments may have been characterized. To accommodate this possibility, we refrained from making a more general statement, but stated “most non-membrane-bound compartments…”.

• Lines 40-43, RNA interactions driving LLPS: Please include citations from the Parker Lab (e.g. Van Treeck and Parker, Cell. 2018 doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.023) *

We added the reference suggested by the reviewer.

• *

• Line 60, condensates contain hundreds of different proteins and RNA: Please cite at least a few examples of condensates with their components identified. *

We added some references following suggestion by the reviewer.

• Lines 82-84, PGL-3 drives assembly: Please cite Kawasaki, et al. Genetics 2004 for the discovery of PGL-3. *

We added the reference suggested by the reviewer.

• Lines 88-89, PGL-3 N-terminal fragment predominantly alpha-helical: The PGL domain structures should be cited here as supporting evidence that these regions are composed primarily of alpha helices (Aoki, et al 2016, 2021) *

• *

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

• Lines 158-159, driving forces for phase separation: This statement should be removed or expanded. The authors point regarding the protein concentrations is not clear here but clarified in the Discussion (Lines 691-693). Recommend removing due to its speculative nature. *

We retained the speculative comment in the results section. We feel that this prepares the readers for the discussion later in the manuscript.

• Lines 210: Add commas before and after "PGL-1 and GLH-1"*

We addressed the reviewer’s suggestion.

• Lines 218-219: add "and" instead of comma between PGL-1 and GLH-1 *

We addressed the reviewer’s suggestion.

• Lines 238-239, alpha-helices: The PGL CDD structure should also be referenced here (Aoki, et al 2016). *

To address this concern, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

• Lines 680-682, MEG proteins: Please cite accordingly. *

We added the reference suggested by the reviewer.

• Lines 694-695, heterotypic interactions: Please cite Saha, et al. 2016. *

We added the reference suggested by the reviewer.

• Figure 1: Add space between 1 and mM DTT *

We addressed the reviewer’s suggestion.

• Figure 2b: Please provide statistics between condensate numbers. *

We provide statistics between condensate numbers in Fig. 2b.

• Figure 4A: The region of the germline imaged and analyzed should be mentioned in the caption or the main text. *

We revised the Figure legend of Fig. 4a to address this issue.

• Figure 4B,C: Please include statistics between the FRAP curves. *

We have included statistics comparing FRAP curves in Supplementary Fig. 4a-c.

• Figure 4D: It will be helpful to compare this curve to Figure S4A in the same graph. Please also include graph statistics. *

We have revised Fig. 4 to address the reviewer’s suggestion.

• Figure 5: The data points are difficult to resolve. Recommend use of color.*

We considered the suggestion, but felt it works better in the original form.

• Figure 6: This is a very general model that does not highlight the extensive experimental work performed by the authors. Recommend incorporating PGL-3, mutants and P granule factors into this model. *

We thank the reviewer for appreciating our extensive work. However, we retained the original Fig. 6 for the sake of simplicity.

• Methods, Line 939, C. elegans section: What worms were used? TH623? Please describe the genotype. *

We have included a table listing the strains used in the study and their genotype. * CROSS-CONSULTATION COMMENTS While my review was arguably the more favorable of the three, I agree with the other reviewers' comments and evaluation, particularly with Reviewer #1. As written in my review, my primary concern was the biological relevance of the work.*

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

Overall, the in vitro work presented investigating the biophysical properties of this minimal P granule system was thorough and well-analyzed, and the manuscript was clearly written. Additional citations and statistics will improve the manuscript and the strength of the conclusions, respectively. The biological relevance of this study to P granule form and function in vivo, and to condensates in vivo, is debatable. This work will interest those who study condensate biology, the biophysics of protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions, and RNA biochemists more generally.

A major impact of our work is elucidation of a novel “dynamics buffering” property within biomolecular condensates in vitro. Our in vivo data is consistent with this finding.

We have chosen two orthogonal ways of perturbing the PGL-3 protein (i.e. mutations and temperature-dependent unfolding) to assay the effect on diffusion rate against different levels of perturbation (e.g. 30% loss of a-helicity in heat-denatured PGL-3-mEGFP vs. 15% loss of a-helicity in the S1 mutant, compared to wild-type PGL-3). Studying the phase separation behavior of these “artificially-generated” constructs provided the understanding that dynamics of PGL-3 in condensates depends on inter-molecular interactions, and slower dynamics generally correlate with stronger inter-molecular interactions. Further, interactions among two or more P granule components can buffer against large change in dynamics / aggregation within the P granule phase. These insights may lay the groundwork for addressing how more “natural” modifications (e.g., post-translational modifications, high local concentration of “sticky” molecules) may influence dynamics within biomolecular condensates in vivo.

• *

Based on current knowledge of P granule composition, chaperone proteins (e.g. heat-shock family proteins) do not show abundant concentration within P granules. However, it is unclear if chaperone proteins are completely excluded from the P granule phase. Therefore, we speculate that weak interactions among two or more non-chaperone proteins contribute significantly to “dynamics buffering” within the P granule phase in vivo.

In the discussion section of the manuscript, we had speculated that “dynamics buffering” may potentially explain observations reported in the nucleolus: “Similarly, interactions among components could be a potential mechanism of storage of misfolding-prone proteins in non-aggregated state within the liquid-like nucleolus under stress in vivo (Frottin et al, 2019).”

Our finding is also relevant in the context of synthetic biology with applications that require steady diffusion rate of macromolecules during biochemical reactions within biomolecular condensates.

*I have expertise in P granules, protein/RNA biochemistry, condensate assembly, and C. elegans. *

References

Aoki ST, Kershner AM, Bingman CA, Wickens M & Kimble J (2016) PGL germ granule assembly protein is a base-specific, single-stranded RNase. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Aoki ST, Lynch TR, Crittenden SL, Bingman CA, Wickens M & Kimble J (2021) C. elegans germ granules require both assembly and localized regulators for mRNA repression. Nat Commun 12: 996

Cipriani PG, Bay O, Zinno J, Gutwein M, Gan HH, Mayya VK, Chung G, Chen J-X, Fahs H, Guan Y, et al (2021) Novel LOTUS-domain proteins are organizational hubs that recruit C. elegans Vasa to germ granules. Elife 10: e60833

Frottin F, Schueder F, Tiwary S, Gupta R, Körner R, Schlichthaerle T, Cox J, Jungmann R, Hartl FU & Hipp MS (2019) The nucleolus functions as a phase-separated protein quality control compartment. Science 365: 342–347

Kawasaki I, Amiri A, Fan Y, Meyer N, Dunkelbarger S, Motohashi T, Karashima T, Bossinger O & Strome S (2004) The PGL family proteins associate with germ granules and function redundantly in Caenorhabditis elegans germline development. Genetics 167: 645–661

Kawasaki I, Shim YH, Kirchner J, Kaminker J, Wood WB & Strome S (1998) PGL-1, a predicted RNA-binding component of germ granules, is essential for fertility in C. elegans. Cell 94: 635–645

Phillips CM & Updike DL (2022) Germ granules and gene regulation in the Caenorhabditis elegans germline. Genetics 220: iyab195

Price IF, Hertz HL, Pastore B, Wagner J & Tang W (2021) Proximity labeling identifies LOTUS domain proteins that promote the formation of perinuclear germ granules in C. elegans. Elife 10: e72276

Saha S, Weber CA, Nousch M, Adame-Arana O, Hoege C, Hein MY, Osborne Nishimura E, Mahamid J, Jahnel M, Jawerth L, et al (2016) Polar Positioning of Phase-Separated Liquid Compartments in Cells Regulated by an mRNA Competition Mechanism. Cell 166: 1572-1584.e16

Spike C, Meyer N, Racen E, Orsborn A, Kirchner J, Kuznicki K, Yee C, Bennett K & Strome S (2008a) Genetic analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans GLH family of P-granule proteins. Genetics 178: 1973–1987

Spike CA, Bader J, Reinke V & Strome S (2008b) DEPS-1 promotes P-granule assembly and RNA interference in C. elegans germ cells. Development (Cambridge, England) 135: 983–993