Back

Sticker number modulates pyrenoid condensate assembly to support algal fitness

Kumar, G.; Barrett, J.; Van der Stappen, P.; Payne-Dwyer, A.; Nam, O.; Shepherd, J.; Frame, L.; Howard, J.; Malis, V.; Degut, C.; Hodgkinson, M.; Richter, R.; Schaefer, C.; Plevin, M.; Hondele, M.; Leake, M.; Engel, B.; Mackinder, L.

2026-01-29 cell biology
10.64898/2026.01.27.701992 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The valency of intrinsically disordered proteins underpins liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS), yet how this parameter shapes condensate function and cellular fitness remains poorly understood. Here we exploit the algal pyrenoid-a minimal, two component LLPS system-to directly link condensate properties to physiological performance. Pyrenoid assembly is driven by a disordered, multivalent Linker protein that binds Rubisco at symmetry-related surface sites, with the number of binding motifs ("stickers") varying across species. Using Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, we systematically tuned sticker number from two to nine and examined effects on Rubisco condensation, pyrenoid architecture and CO2 fixation. Three stickers were sufficient for condensation in vitro, but at least four were required for pyrenoid assembly in vivo. Cryo-electron tomography and single-molecule tracking revealed that increasing sticker number enhances Rubisco packing and mobility, while time-resolved imaging and competition assays demonstrated that sticker number governs the kinetics of pyrenoid formation and determines cellular fitness under fluctuating carbon conditions. Our findings establish sticker number as an evolutionary tuning parameter that balances condensate formation, dynamics, and function, providing a quantitative framework for linking the molecular grammar of phase separation to biological fitness.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.