Tiemei Lu1, Evan Spruijt1. 1. Institute for Molecules and Materials , Radboud University , Heyendaalseweg 135 , 6525 AJ , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
Abstract
Liquid-liquid phase separation plays an important role in cellular organization. Many subcellular condensed bodies are hierarchically organized into multiple coexisting domains or layers. However, our molecular understanding of the assembly and internal organization of these multicomponent droplets is still incomplete, and rules for the coexistence of condensed phases are lacking. Here, we show that the formation of hierarchically organized multiphase droplets with up to three coexisting layers is a generic phenomenon in mixtures of complex coacervates, which serve as models of charge-driven liquid-liquid phase separated systems. We present simple theoretical guidelines to explain both the hierarchical arrangement and the demixing transition in multiphase droplets using the interfacial tensions and critical salt concentration as inputs. Multiple coacervates can coexist if they differ sufficiently in macromolecular density, and we show that the associated differences in critical salt concentration can be used to predict multiphase droplet formation. We also show that the coexisting coacervates present distinct chemical environments that can concentrate guest molecules to different extents. Our findings suggest that condensate immiscibility may be a very general feature in biological systems, which could be exploited to design self-organized synthetic compartments to control biomolecular processes.
Liquid-liquid phase separation plays an important role in cellular organization. Many subcellular condensed bodies are hierarchically organized into multiple coexisting domains or layers. However, our molecular understanding of the assembly and internal organization of these multicomponent droplets is still incomplete, and rules for the coexistence of condensed phases are lacking. Here, we show that the formation of hierarchically organized multiphase droplets with up to three coexisting layers is a generic phenomenon in mixtures of complex coacervates, which serve as models of charge-driven liquid-liquid phase separated systems. We present simple theoretical guidelines to explain both the hierarchical arrangement and the demixing transition in multiphase droplets using the interfacial tensions and critical salt concentration as inputs. Multiple coacervates can coexist if they differ sufficiently in macromolecular density, and we show that the associated differences in critical salt concentration can be used to predict multiphase droplet formation. We also show that the coexisting coacervates present distinct chemical environments that can concentrate guest molecules to different extents. Our findings suggest that condensate immiscibility may be a very general feature in biological systems, which could be exploited to design self-organized synthetic compartments to control biomolecular processes.
Liquid–liquid
phase separation has emerged as an important
mechanism for the organization of the intracellular environment.[1−3] Membraneless organelles are condensed, often liquid-like bodies
formed by phase separation of specific proteins and sometimes also
RNA by weak multivalent associative interactions.[3−5] They facilitate
a wide range of cellular functions, acting as processing bodies, storage
granules, or organizational hubs.[1,6] Various membraneless
organelles have hierarchical structures with multiple liquid-like
or solid-like inner phases. Examples include nucleoli[7] and stress granules,[8−10] paraspeckles,[11] and nuclear speckles.[12] The
coexistence of multiple condensed phases in a single membraneless
organelle has been suggested to reflect the organelles’ complex
functions, in which different biomolecular processes take place in
physically separated regions.[13,14] However, liquid–liquid
phase separation in general, and the emergence of multiphase droplets
in cells in particular could also be an inevitable consequence of
the underlying molecular interactions.[15] The in vitro reconstituted nucleoli from purified proteins suggest
that multiphase droplets could indeed be a generic phenomenon.[7] However, insights into the physical principles
and the role of chemical interactions that underlie the emergence
and behavior of multiphase liquid droplets are scarce.[16]To understand the physical and chemical
requirements for liquid–liquid
multiphase separation and coexistence, we need to investigate the
phase behavior of well-defined model systems comprising multiple phase
separating components, and systematically vary the interactions and
composition. A recent simulation study with self-attracting particles
showed that multiphase droplets can be formed when the interactions
between separate components are sufficiently different.[17] However, nearly all components of condensed
liquid phases in biological systems are polymeric, such as disordered
proteins and RNA, which interact via a limited number of interaction
motifs,[3−5] and it remains unclear how likely it is for these
systems to form multiphase droplets. Using an experimental model system
of elastin-like polypeptides (ELPs), López and co-workers showed
that ELPs with different lower critical solution temperatures could
phase separate into multilayered droplets, provided they have dissimilar
amino acid content and are sufficiently long.[18] They rationalized their results with a mean-field Flory–Huggins
theory for poorly water-soluble polymers, and suggested that subtle
changes in amino acid composition might be sufficient to warrant condensate
immiscibility and the emergence of multiphase structures. Many biological
condensate components differ from ELPs in that they contain a significant
fraction of charged residues (e.g., nucleotides, lysine, arginine,
and phosphorylated amino acids),[19] and
there is considerable evidence that charge-driven assembly plays an
important role in the formation of various membraneless organelles.[4,5,20−23] We therefore asked if multiple
condensates of partially charged macromolecules, such as RNA, could
still coexist and what would be their most favorable structural organization.Here, we show that the formation of multiphase droplets is a generic
phenomenon in mixtures of charge-driven liquid–liquid phase
separated systems with different critical salt concentrations. We
use complex coacervates as model systems for condensed liquid droplets
formed by associative phase separation in biological systems. Complex
coacervates are liquid droplets (which ultimately coarsen to macroscopically
separated phases) that form by associative liquid–liquid phase
separation in mixtures of multivalent, oppositely charged molecules.[24,25] These droplets are enriched in macromolecules, and have been used
to model various aspects of membraneless organelles, including their
viscoelastic characteristics,[26,27] controlled formation
and dissolution by enzymes such as kinases,[28,29] and salt sensitivity.[20] The basic phase
behavior of most complex coacervates can be described satisfactorily
by a mean-field Flory–Huggins theory,[25,30,31] similar to the liquid–liquid phase
separation of many components derived from membraneless organelles.[4,20] We show that complex coacervates coexist in multiphase droplets
if they have different critical salt concentrations, which is used
as an indicator for differences in macromolecular density and water
content of the coacervates.
Experimental Section
Materials
All polymers used in this study are commercially
available or synthesized according to previously reported methods.
A list of all polymers and their characteristics can be found in the Supporting Information (extended methods and Table S1). Salts, including sodium chloride (NaCl),
magnesium chloride (MgCl2·6H2O), and 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic
acid (HEPES) were purchased from Sigma. All solutions were prepared
in Milli-Q water (MQ) and the pH of buffer solutions was adjusted
using sodium hydroxide (NaOH, Baker) and hydrochloric acid (HCl 37%,VWR).
mPEG-trimethoxysilane (5 kDa) was purchased from Jenkem Technology.
Dye molecules for partitioning experiments were dissolved in Milli-Q
(pH 7) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, Sigma) before use at the following
concentrations. Rhodamine B (RhoB, 1.5 mM in MQ), Thioflavin T (ThT,
1.0 mM in MQ), 6-Aminofluorescein (6-AF, 20 mM in MQ), 5(6)-carboxyfluorescein
(5(6)-CF, 8.5 mM in DMSO), 4,4′,4″,4‴-(porphine-5,10,15,20-tetrayl)-tetrakis(benzoic
acid) (TCPP or tetrakis-carboxyphenylporphyrin, 2.0 mM in MQ), Methyl
blue (MB, 3.1 mM in MQ) and Nile red (NR, 31 mM in DMSO) were purchased
from Sigma. Polyethylene glycol difluorescein (PEG-difluorescein,
8 kDa, 150 mg/mL) was purchased from Chemicell and diluted 30×
before use. SYBR gold nucleic acid stain (SG, 10 000×
concentrate in DMSO) was purchased from Thermo Fisher and diluted
100× before use. eGFP (84.7 μM) was produced and purified
using a custom-made IVTT protocol as described elsewhere.[32]
Complex Coacervate Formation
Stock
solutions of all
polymers, salts and buffers were prepared at the indicated concentrations
in Milli-Q water. Typically, polymer stock solutions were prepared
at 50 mg/mL, pH 7 without added salt.Single-phase coacervates
(Table S2) were prepared by first mixing
NaCl (3.0 M stock), HEPES (0.50 M stock) and Milli-Q water in a microcentrifuge
tube (0.5 mL, Eppendorf). To the mixture, 1:1 charge-stoichiometric
quantities of the positively and negatively charged polymers or molecules
were added to a total volume of 20 μL. The final NaCl concentration
in the mixture varied from 6 mM to 1.0 M (Table S3). Mixing was done by gentle pipetting (3×) before each
measurement. To the coacervates containing adenosine triphosphate
(ATP) and single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), 5 mM MgCl2 was added.For preparation of multiphase coacervates (Table S4), we used two methods. For the first method, we mixed
all the like-charged polymers together and added those at a 1:1 stoichiometric
ratio to the premixed buffer and salt solutions (Figure S1). For the second method, two different types of
coacervates were prepared separately, as described above, diluted
to the same salt concentration, and then mixed together in a separate
tube (Figure S2). Both methods yielded
the same multiphase droplets.For the three-phase coacervates,
three samples were prepared, (1)
poly(3-sulfopropyl methacrylate) (PSPMA)/poly(diallyl dimethylammonium
chloride) (PDDA) + ATP/poly(allylamine hydrochloride) (PAH) + poly(acrylic
acid) (PAA)/PDDA, (2) PSPMA/PAH/PDDA/glycidyl trimethylammonium chloride
functionalized dextran (Q-Dex) and (3) PSPMA/PAH/PDDA/diethylaminoethyl-functionalized
dextran (DEAE-Dex). All samples were prepared according to the same
two methods described above, with a final salt concentration of 0.3
M for sample 1, 0.2 M for sample 2 and 0.4 M for sample 3. Mixing
was done by gentle pipetting (3×) before each measurement.
Wide-Field and Confocal Microscopy
Images were obtained
using a CSU X-1 Yokogawa spinning disc confocal unit connected to
an Olympus IX81 inverted microscope, using a 100× oil immersion
objective (NA 1.5) and recorded on an Andor iXon EM-CCD camera. For
imaging, a 10–30 μL aliquot of a coacervate mixture was
added to a custom-made mPEG-trimethoxysilane passivated PDMS observation
chamber on a cover glass slide (No. 1.5H, with an average thickness
of 170 ± 5 μm). PDMS chambers were prepared by curing a
slab of PDMS (Sylgard 184 elastomer kit, 10:1 PDMS:cross-linker) for
90 min at 65 °C, cutting out 5 × 5 mm square wells, and
bonding them to a cover glass using plasma activation. The PDMS and
glass surfaces were PEGylated after plasma activation by immersing
them in a 30 mg/mL solution of mPEG-trimethoxysilane (5 kDa) in ethanol
for 2 h at 60 °C.
Critical Salt Concentrations
The
critical salt concentration
of single-phase coacervates was measured on a microplate reader (Tecan
Spark), equipped with a microinjector, as described elsewhere.[29] Briefly, turbidity of a coacervate solution
with a total starting volume of 50 μL above the critical salt
concentration was monitored as a function of the concentration of
NaCl at a wavelength of 600 nm and a temperature of 26 ± 1 °C
in 96-well plates (Greiner Bio-one, clear flat-bottom wells) by dilution
with MQ in 5 μL steps. Samples were shaken for 0.3 s before
every readout. The critical point was determined by extrapolating
the first-order derivative at the inflection point to zero turbidity.
Note that this critical salt concentration does not take into account
ions from other sources than the added NaCl, and the actual critical
ionic strength may be slightly higher.
Selective Dissolution
For selective dissolution and
condensation of multiphase droplets, we selected PSPMA/PDDA/PAH and
prepared the sample according to method 2. For selective dissolution,
we started at a NaCl concentration of 0.50 M and added 20 μL
of the mixture into a large-volume mPEG-silane modified PDMS sample
chamber on a cover glass slide. We then added increasing amounts of
NaCl from a 4.0 M stock to reach the indicated salt concentrations,
mixed the sample by gentle pipetting (3×), and recorded images.
For the reverse experiment of selective condensation, we prepared
the mixture at a NaCl concentration of 3.0 M and added 20 μL
of the mixture into a large-volume mPEG-silane modified PDMS sample
chamber on a cover glass slide. We then added increasing amounts of
Milli-Q to decrease the NaCl concentration to the indicated values,
mixed the sample by gentle pipetting (3×), and recorded images.
Partitioning
For partitioning experiments, 20 μL
aliquots of a selected multiphase coacervate system (PSPMA/PDDA/PAH
or PSPMA/PDDA/Q-Dex) were added to neighboring mPEG-silane modified
PDMS sample chambers on a cover glass slide. Small quantities of the
stock solutions of the dye molecules were added to the multiphase
coacervate droplets, mixed by gentle pipetting, and visualized by
excitation at the indicated wavelengths. TCPP (0.3 μL) and ThT
(2 μL) were excited at 405 nm. 6-AF (0.2 μL), 5(6)-CF
(0.2 μL), PEG-difluorescein (0.2 μL), SG (1 μL)
and eGFP (2 μL) were all excited at 488 nm. RhoB (1 μL)
and NR (0.2 μL) were excited at 561 nm. Finally, MB (0.4 μL)
was excited at 640 nm. The partition coefficient (K) was determined from average fluorescence intensities as K1 = (Ic,out – Ib)/(Id – Ib) and K2 = (Ic,in – Ib)/(Ic,out – Ib), where Ib, Id, Ic,out and Ic,in are the intensity of a blank solution, the dilute
phase surrounding the multiphase droplets, the outer coacervate layer,
and the inner core coacervate of the multiphase droplets, respectively.
Results and Discussion
Multiphase Droplet Formation
Many
oppositely charged
polymers, including oligopeptides and nucleotides,[28,33,34] derivatized polysaccharides,[35] and synthetic polyelectrolytes,[36] can form spherical coacervate droplets by associative phase
separation upon mixing with a preferential 1:1 charge ratio. Over
time these droplets coarsen and fuse, ultimately resulting in a bulk
liquid coacervate phase. This type of liquid–liquid phase separation
(LLPS) of oppositely charged macromolecules is driven by ion pairing
and the release of counterions.[24] On first
thought, one would expect combinations of two such complex coacervates
to mix and form a single merged coacervate, owing to their common
electrostatic interactions.To investigate what happens to mixtures
of complex coacervates, we combined populations of two different complex
coacervates (Table S4). As an example,
we mixed complex coacervates of ssDNA and trimethylated poly-l-lysine (PLys(Me)3) with coacervates of ssDNA and a lysine-rich
ELP, which was fused to GFP (GFP-K72).[18,34] Both combinations form spherical complex coacervate droplets separately
(Figure S3) with similar high internal
water contents of 70% (w/w) or more at the same salt concentration.
Surprisingly, when added together we observed the formation of multiphase
coacervate droplets with single or multiple domains of PLys(Me)3/ssDNA inside GFP-K72/ssDNA droplets (Figure a,b). The PLys(Me)3/ssDNA domains are separated from the GFP-K72/ssDNA
droplet by a sharp and smooth interface, typical of coexisting liquid
phases. ssDNA is the common polyanion of both complex coacervates
and is present in both phases, but not in equal concentrations (Figure S3d).
Figure 1
Multiphase complex coacervate droplets
formed by mixing different
polymeric coacervates (structures are shown in Table S1, and fluorescently labeled polymers are underlined).
(a,b) ssDNA/PLys(Me)3 core coacervates in a ssDNA/GFP-K72 outer coacervate phase, viewed in (a) bright-field and (b)
confocal fluorescence microscopy with fluorescence from Alexa-647
labeled ssDNA (red channel) and GFP (green channel). (c) ATP/PAH cores
ATP/PDDA outer phases, with fluorescence from rhodamine-labeled PAH.
(d) PGlu/PAH cores in PGlu/PDDA outer coacervate phases, shown as
overlay of bright-field and fluorescence microscope image with fluorescence
from rhodamine-labeled PAH. (e) PAA/PLys(Me)3 cores in
PAA/GFP-K72 outer coacervate phases, with fluorescence
from GFP. (f) PSPMA/PAH cores in PSPMA/DEAE-Dex outer coacervate phases,
with fluorescence from rhodamine-labeled PAH. (g) Dextran sulfate
(S-Dex)/PLys(Me)3 cores in S-Dex/GFP-K72 outer
coacervate phases, with fluorescence from GFP. (h) PSPMA/PAH cores
in PSPMA/PDDA outer coacervate phases, with fluorescence from rhodamine-labeled
PAH. (i) PSPMA/PDDA cores in PSPMA/Q-Dex outer coacervate phases,
with fluorescence from fluorescein-labeled PSPMA. (j) ATP/PAH cores
in PSPMA/PDDA outer coacervate phases, with fluorescence from fluorescein-labeled
PSPMA (green channel) and rhodamine-labeled PAH (yellow channel).
Multiphase complex coacervate droplets
formed by mixing different
polymeric coacervates (structures are shown in Table S1, and fluorescently labeled polymers are underlined).
(a,b) ssDNA/PLys(Me)3 core coacervates in a ssDNA/GFP-K72 outer coacervate phase, viewed in (a) bright-field and (b)
confocal fluorescence microscopy with fluorescence from Alexa-647
labeled ssDNA (red channel) and GFP (green channel). (c) ATP/PAH cores
ATP/PDDA outer phases, with fluorescence from rhodamine-labeled PAH.
(d) PGlu/PAH cores in PGlu/PDDA outer coacervate phases, shown as
overlay of bright-field and fluorescence microscope image with fluorescence
from rhodamine-labeled PAH. (e) PAA/PLys(Me)3 cores in
PAA/GFP-K72 outer coacervate phases, with fluorescence
from GFP. (f) PSPMA/PAH cores in PSPMA/DEAE-Dex outer coacervate phases,
with fluorescence from rhodamine-labeled PAH. (g) Dextran sulfate
(S-Dex)/PLys(Me)3 cores in S-Dex/GFP-K72 outer
coacervate phases, with fluorescence from GFP. (h) PSPMA/PAH cores
in PSPMA/PDDA outer coacervate phases, with fluorescence from rhodamine-labeled
PAH. (i) PSPMA/PDDA cores in PSPMA/Q-Dex outer coacervate phases,
with fluorescence from fluorescein-labeled PSPMA. (j) ATP/PAH cores
in PSPMA/PDDA outer coacervate phases, with fluorescence from fluorescein-labeled
PSPMA (green channel) and rhodamine-labeled PAH (yellow channel).We observed similar multiphase droplets for the
large majority
of coacervate mixtures we tested (Figure c–j, Table S4). These structures are reminiscent of multicompartment membraneless
organelles with distinct core domains, such as nucleoli[7] and stress granules,[8−10] and comprise
three coexisting liquid phases: the core coacervate, the outer coacervate,
and the surrounding dilute phase.[18]Both the outer droplets and the inner domains are liquids, as demonstrated
by their coalescence and ability to engulf other droplets (Figure a–c, Movies S1–S4). Coalescence of core droplets
is slow and relatively infrequent as expected based on the high local
viscosity inside the corona droplet. The typical time scale of diffusion-limited
collision between core droplets is given by , where η is the viscosity of the surrounding
coacervate and c0 is the initial number
density of core droplets.
For a typical outer coacervate viscosity of 100 mPa·s,[26] the average collision time between two core
coacervates in a 10 μm outer droplet is of the order of 1 h.
It does not depend on the core coacervate size, but confinement by
the outer droplet may lead to faster collision. Interestingly, the
very low predicted collision rates may also explain why fusion of
certain core domains inside membraneless organelles[7] or condensates in the crowded nucleoplasm[20] is not readily observed, as coarsening occurs over typical
time scales of minutes to hours.[37]
Figure 2
Interfacial
tension-governed arrangement and fusion in multiphase
coacervate droplets. (a) Fusion of core PAA/PLys(Me)3 coacervates
inside a PAA/GFP-K72 outer phase (cf. Figure e). (b) Fusion of PGlu/PDDA
coacervates followed by fusion of their internal PGlu/PAH cores (cf. Figure d). (c) Engulfing
of an ATP/PAH coacervate by a PSPMA/PDDA coacervate (cf. Figure j). (d) Schematic
illustration of four scenarios of two coexisting liquid droplets.
(e) Dual multiphase arrangement (1/2 and 2/1) in PSPMA/PLys/PLys(Me)3.
Interfacial
tension-governed arrangement and fusion in multiphase
coacervate droplets. (a) Fusion of core PAA/PLys(Me)3 coacervates
inside a PAA/GFP-K72 outer phase (cf. Figure e). (b) Fusion of PGlu/PDDA
coacervates followed by fusion of their internal PGlu/PAH cores (cf. Figure d). (c) Engulfing
of an ATP/PAH coacervate by a PSPMA/PDDA coacervate (cf. Figure j). (d) Schematic
illustration of four scenarios of two coexisting liquid droplets.
(e) Dual multiphase arrangement (1/2 and 2/1) in PSPMA/PLys/PLys(Me)3.When two core coacervate droplets
do collide, they are driven to
fuse by a reduction of the total interfacial area, highlighting the
fact that they are true liquids in a surrounding liquid (Figure a,b, Movies S1–S3). The fusion time scale of
droplets can be estimated from , which only depends on the viscosity (η) and size (R) of the core
droplets, and the interfacial tension between
both coacervates.[38] Because the core coacervate
is typically the densest phase with the highest critical salt concentration
(see below), the viscosity of the core coacervate is significantly
higher, and fusion of core droplets is much slower than fusion of
outer coacervates, in agreement with our observations.To prove
that the multiphase droplets we observed are equilibrium
liquid–liquid phase separated systems (apart from coarsening),
and not kinetic intermediates en route to forming homogeneously mixed
coacervates, we prepared the same multiphase droplets by mixing all
like-charged components together first without forming separate coacervate
populations. We found the same multiphase coacervate droplets with
the same core and outer phases (Figures S1–S2), indicating that the two coexisting complex coacervates are inherently
immiscible and that the multiphase arrangement of phases is energetically
favored.In order to understand the physical and chemical requirements
for
liquid–liquid multiphase separation and coexistence, we first
analyze the chemical characteristics of the immiscible coacervates.
As shown in Figure and Table S4, multiphase droplet formation
is not limited to a single type of polycation or polyanion. We can
form multiphase droplets with sulfates, phosphates, and carboxylates,
and with primary, tertiary, and quaternary amines. We can use two
complex coacervates with a common polyanion (Figure ), a common polycation (Figure S4), or two polycations and polyanions (Figure j). Finally, even two complex
coacervates with a common polyanion and a polycation with the same
type of charged group (e.g., primary amine) can form multiphase droplets
when mixed (Figure i and S5). However, not all combinations
of complex coacervates yielded multiphase droplets. For some combinations
with very similar critical salt concentrations, we observed single-phase,
mixed coacervate droplets (Table S5 and Figure S6). In brief, complex coacervates with widely varying chemical
characteristics can all undergo liquid–liquid phase separation
into multiphase droplets, implying that a generic explanation underlies
this process.
Interfacial Energy of Multiphase Droplets
Why do most
mixtures of complex coacervates separate into multiphase droplets?
To address this question, we consider the following two aspects of
multiphase droplet formation. We first discuss why the droplets have
a typical hierarchical arrangement with a core droplet embedded in
an outer coacervate, as opposed to isolated complex coacervate droplets.
Second, we discuss why the coacervate phases are demixed inside the
multiphase droplets.The first aspect involves the interfacial
energy requirements for the formation of multiphase droplets. Figure d shows four possible
scenarios for the organization of two droplets of immiscible liquids
1 and 2:[39,40] a multiphase droplet of 1-in-2, a multiphase
droplet of 2-in-1, a set of attached lenses in partial wetting (1–2),
and complete nonwetting, in which the two droplets remain separate
(left of arrow). The latter is a limit of the partial wetting scenario
with θ → 180°. In experiments, we always observed
the complete wetting of one type of coacervate droplets by the other
coacervate (1-in-2 or 2-in-1), meaning that the core coacervate droplets
are spontaneously engulfed by the outer coacervates. We could directly
observe the process of engulfing in bright-field (Figure c, Movie S4) and fluorescence microscopy (Figure S7). It is completely analogous to the wetting-induced formation
of double emulsions in microfluidics.[39]A coacervate droplet 1 will be engulfed by another coacervate
droplet
2 if the total interfacial energy of the resulting multiphase droplet
(Figure d, case 1
in 2) is lower than the combined interfacial energies of the individual
droplets:[39] 4πR12γ1d + 4πR22γ2d > 4πR12γ12 + 4π(R13 + R23)2/3 γ2d, which yieldswhere .The ratio α2 is a measure
of the relative droplet
size and ranges from 0 (R1 ≪ R2) to 1 (R1 ≫ R2). On the basis of this balance, the spreading
coefficient S2 is defined as S2 = γ1 – (α2γ12 + γ2d), and full engulfment
of coacervate 1 by 2 requires a positive spreading coefficient (S2 > 0). Likewise, droplet 2 will be engulfed
by droplet 1 (Figure d, case 2 in 1) if:where .The analysis
above predicts that the coacervate with the highest
interfacial tension (γ1d or γ2d)
is the most likely to be engulfed. In the case of complex coacervates,
this is typically the densest coacervate with the highest critical
salt concentration.[41−43] It is interesting to note that engulfing depends
on the size ratio of the coacervate droplets. Small droplets are always
more likely to be engulfed by larger ones. Therefore, both eqs and 2 can be true at the same time in a single system, and 1-in-2 and
2-in-1 droplets may be found together if γ1d and
γ2d are nearly identical. We indeed found examples
of dual multiphase arrangements in mixtures of poly-l-lysine
(PLys) and PLys(Me)3 with PSPMA as common polyanion (Figure e), with the smaller
PLys/PSPMA coacervates engulfed by large PLys(Me)3/PSPMA
coacervates (bright regions in darker droplets) and small PLys(Me)3/PSPMA coacervates engulfed by large PLys/PSPMA coacervates
(dark regions in brighter droplets). As the droplets coarsen through
coalescence, this arrangement eventually breaks up into one of the
two arrangements, depending on the ultimate ratio α1.Finally, partial wetting (Figure d, case 1-2) is expected for any droplet
size ratio
(α1 → 0 or α2 → 0)
if:and the angle θ between
contacting droplets is given by[44]For very large interfacial tensions between
the two coacervates
(γ12 ≥ γ1d + γ2d), the angle θ is equal to π (180°) and
the droplets become completely nonwetting (i.e., they do not touch
and remain isolated). We have not observed any nonwetting or partial
wetting for the multiphase coacervate droplets we prepared. This means
that the interfacial tension between coacervate phases (γ12) must typically be smaller than the interfacial tensions
of the corresponding individual coacervates (γ1d and
γ2d). For these complex coacervate model systems,
in which the surrounding liquid is a dilute solution, it is expected
that γ12 is smaller than both γ1d and γ2d, because the difference in density between
two coacervates is typically smaller than the difference in density
between either coacervate and the dilute phase.[25,30] For condensates in biological systems the situation may be different,
since the surrounding cytoplasm and nucleoplasm are highly crowded
with other macromolecules (i.e., γ12 ≈ γ1d ≈ γ2d or γ12 >
γ1d). Nonwetting or partial wetting of membraneless
organelles could therefore be more common,[1] and partly explain why many membraneless organelles remain separate
in the cell.
Density Differences between Coexisting Coacervates
The second requirement for the formation of multiphase droplets
is
immiscibility of the two coacervate phases once they are present in
the same droplet. Immiscibility is relatively common for solutions
of long water-soluble polymers, such as PEG, polyacrylamide and dextran,[45] and the phase behavior of the resulting aqueous
multiphase systems can usually be rationalized using a mean-field
Flory–Huggins theoretical framework.[18,46] The Flory interaction parameter χ provides a measure of the
strength of interaction between different components in a mixture,
relative to their self-interaction (high positive values reflect more
unfavorable interactions).Beyond a critical χc, a mixture of two components phase separates. This critical value
depends strongly on the length of the coexisting components, as translational
entropy becomes negligible for long polymers. In the case of demixing
polymer solutions, the critical value χc could be
written as follows, under the assumption that both phases are equally
hydrated:where N1 and N2 are the chain lengths
of the two species, and ϕw is the
volume fraction of water (together with all other common components)
in both phases. For two long polymers, phase separation already occurs
near χc = 0, that is, even for weakly unfavorable
interactions.[45] If the phases are hydrated
differently, a proper analysis requires a full multicomponent Flory–Huggins
theory, which is beyond the scope of the current work.An analogous
Flory–Huggins formalism can be used to describe
the phase separation of oppositely charged macromolecules at 1:1 charge
ratio, by using an effective Flory interaction parameter between the
complexed polymers and the solvent, which depends on the ionic strength
(Supporting Information).[4,20,25,30,47] Although this approach is only an approximation
to the full interaction energy, it can capture the basic features
of complex coacervation, and we use it here to predict the miscibility
of multiple complex coacervates. To that end, we express the effective
interaction parameter χ12, quantifying the interaction
strength between the polymers in the two demixed coacervates,[18] in terms of the interactions between the respective
coacervates and their coexisting dilute solution, χ1d and χ2d: .[48]For the interaction between coacervates χ12 to
exceed the critical value χc, the two coacervates
should have sufficiently different effective interaction parameters
(χ1d, χ2d). We can estimate the
interaction parameters χ1d and χ2d from the critical salt concentrations of the complex coacervates.
The interaction parameter is linked to the polymer density of the
coacervate phase. A high polymer density is a direct indication of
a large χ characterizing the interactions that underlie phase
separation. For complex coacervates, this interaction strength and
the coacervate density is tuned by the salt concentration.[25,30] Above a critical salt concentration, the coacervates are completely
soluble (i.e., χ < χc) and lower salt concentrations
correspond to stronger demixing.[30,31] When two different
complex coacervates are added together at the same salt concentration,
the coacervate with the highest critical salt concentration will have
the highest density (Figure ), and interfacial tension. This implies that two coacervates
with significantly different critical salt concentrations, expressed
by different χ parameters, will have different densities, and
their mutual interaction parameter χ12 is expected
to be sufficiently large to warrant immiscibility:where c1* and c2* are the critical salt
concentrations of the two coacervates (Supporting Information).
Figure 3
Schematic phase diagram of complex coacervation at charge
neutrality
showing binodal curves for coacervates with increasing interaction
strength.
Schematic phase diagram of complex coacervation at charge
neutrality
showing binodal curves for coacervates with increasing interaction
strength.We tested this theory by measuring
the critical salt concentrations
of all complex coacervates we used (Table S5), and found that the critical salt concentrations of all combinations
that was indeed significantly different (>10%). By contrast, when
we mixed coacervates with very similar critical salt concentrations,
we found single-phase, mixed coacervates (Figure S6), in agreement with our predictions.The molecular
origin of complex coacervate immiscibility, and by
extension, of differences in critical salt concentration is the interaction
strength between the oppositely charged polymers in the coacervates,
which depends on charge density, ion type, polymer backbone flexibility,
and accessibility of the charged groups. Phase separation of complex
coacervates is driven by these associative interactions, and stronger
interactions translate into higher critical salt concentrations (reflected
by a higher effective χ) and denser coacervates (Figure ).Our theory also explains
why generally complex coacervates of primary
and quaternized amines with the same polyanion yield multiphase droplets.
Most primary polyamines have significantly higher critical salt concentrations
than the corresponding tertiary or quaternized amines (Table S5), owing to their stronger ion pairing
with most negatively charged groups.[49] The
primary polyamine coacervates therefore have higher densities and
higher interfacial tensions than most quaternized amine coacervates,
and they usually end up in the core of a multiphase droplet. An exception
is the combination of the primary amine containing GFP-K72 and quaternized amines, such as PLys(Me)3, with a common
polyanion, such as PAA or dextran sulfate (Figure e,g). GFP-K72 is consistently
found to be the outer coacervate phase, because it has a much lower
charge density than PLys(Me)3 and therefore a lower effective
interaction parameter and density. In addition, more flexible polymers
are also expected to form complexes more effectively without requiring
bending energy, and therefore have higher critical salt concentrations.[50] In the context of biological systems, our theory
suggests that most condensate components will not mix, since these
are typically long molecules for which small variations in amino acid
composition can already result in sufficiently different condensate
densities, in agreement with previous findings.[17,18]
Selective Dissolution of Multiphase Droplets
We can
take advantage of the fact that the coexisting phases in all multiphase
droplets have different critical salt concentrations by selectively
dissolving or condensing the outermost coacervate phase. Figure shows that multiphase
coacervates with a PAH/PSPMA core and a PDDA/PSPMA corona phase can
be dissolved in a stepwise fashion. Upon increasing the salt concentration
from 0.5 to 1.5 M, the corona phase is dissolved at around 1.1–1.2
M, while the core coacervates remain intact up to 1.5 M and are dissolved
completely at 3.0 M. These steps can be reversed again to form the
same multiphase droplets as in Figure h in a sequential manner (Figure S8).
Figure 4
Step-wise dissolution of PSPMA/PAH/PDDA multiphase droplets, shown
by (a) confocal fluorescence and (b) bright-field microscopy.
Step-wise dissolution of PSPMA/PAH/PDDA multiphase droplets, shown
by (a) confocal fluorescence and (b) bright-field microscopy.
Differential Partitioning
Complex
coacervates are known
for their ability to sequester a wide range of guest molecules, depending
on their chemical characteristics.[51,52] As the coexisting
coacervates in multiphase droplets differ in density and corresponding
water content, they are expected to take up guest molecules to different
extents. We investigated the partitioning of a range of small guest
molecules with different charge and hydrophobicity in multiphase droplets
of PSPMA/PAH/PDDA (Figure h).As shown in Figure , all guest molecules were concentrated in the multiphase
droplets (K1 > 1, see Experimental Section) with partition coefficients ranging
from 1.1 to 1.2 for neutral polar molecules such as eGFP to 5.3–15
for relatively hydrophobic dyes such as ThT (Figure S9). Inside the multiphase droplets most guests concentrated
in the PAH/PSPMA core droplets (K2 >
1).
Hydrophobic and zwitterionic molecules (ThT, 6-aminofluorescein, rhodamine
B, Nile red) showed the strongest fluorescence in core coacervates
relative to the outer coacervate phase, while neutral and negatively
charged molecules (eGFP, TCPP, carboxyfluorescein) showed the weakest
increase in fluorescence in the core coacervates. These results can
be explained by a combination of a lower water content (69% w/w for
PAH/PSPMA and 71% w/w for PDDA/PSPMA at 0.50 M salt) and higher charge
density in the core coacervates, favoring accumulation of hydrophobic
dyes and leading to a more effective intercalation of zwitterionic
dyes. In addition, the fluorescence quantum yield of certain dyes
may be increased in the core coacervates, due to enhanced dimer or
H-aggregate dissociation (e.g., rhodamine B and Nile red)[53] or reduced rotational freedom (e.g., ThT).[54] Finally, fluorescein-labeled PEG was concentrated
in the core of PDDA/Q-Dex/PSPMA multiphase droplets, which is depleted
of dextran, as expected based on the ability of PEG and dextran to
phase separate.[45]
Figure 5
Partitioning of guest
molecules in PSPMA/PAH/PDDA (a–g,i,j)
and PSPMA/Q-Dex/PDDA (h) multiphase droplets visualized by confocal
fluorescence microscopy. Panels show partitioning of different fluorescent
guest molecules: (a) porphyrin derivative tetrakis-carboxyphenylporphyrin
(TCPP), (b) 5(6)-carboxyfluorescein, (c) eGFP, (d) Rhodamine B, (e)
Thioflavin T (ThT), (f) Nile red, (g) 6-aminofluorescein, (h) PEG-difluorescein
in PSPMA/Q-Dex/PDDA multiphase droplets, (i) SYBR Gold, and (j) Methyl
blue. No fluorescently labeled polymers were used to form the coacervates.
Partitioning of guest
molecules in PSPMA/PAH/PDDA (a–g,i,j)
and PSPMA/Q-Dex/PDDA (h) multiphase droplets visualized by confocal
fluorescence microscopy. Panels show partitioning of different fluorescent
guest molecules: (a) porphyrin derivative tetrakis-carboxyphenylporphyrin
(TCPP), (b) 5(6)-carboxyfluorescein, (c) eGFP, (d) Rhodamine B, (e)
Thioflavin T (ThT), (f) Nile red, (g) 6-aminofluorescein, (h) PEG-difluorescein
in PSPMA/Q-Dex/PDDA multiphase droplets, (i) SYBR Gold, and (j) Methyl
blue. No fluorescently labeled polymers were used to form the coacervates.Interestingly, some relatively hydrophobic guest
molecules with
a high net charge strongly adsorbed to the interface between the two
coacervate phases. Both SYBR Gold and methyl blue showed strong fluorescence
localized in a ring around each of the core droplets (Figure i,j). We attribute this adsorption
to the amphiphilic nature of these guest molecules: their hydrophobic
core nature favors concentration in the dense and water-poor PAH/PSPMA
core coacervates, while their hydrophilic, charged moieties favor
accumulation in the more hydrophilic PDDA/PSPMA shell. A similar accumulation
at the coacervate interface has been observed before for molecules
with an amphiphilic nature.[55,56] It would be interesting
to see if a similar mechanism could result in accumulation of specific
biomolecules at the interface between domains in the nucleolus, for
example.[7]
Three-Phase Droplets
Our theory is not limited to multiphase
droplets of two coexisting coacervates. Like in the case of aqueous
multiphase systems, many water-based complex coacervates can in principle
coexist.[45] As complex coacervates can have
widely different critical salt concentrations (Table S5), we expect that multiphase droplets with three or
more coacervates could also be formed, either as hierarchical core–shell–shell
droplets, or as multiple loose cores in a common outer coacervate
phase. The relative magnitudes of the different coacervate-coacervate
interfacial tensions will determine which scenario corresponds to
the lowest surface energy (Figure S10).
Examples of hierarchical arrangement have been found in the case of
nucleoli in living cells,[7] and in ELP droplets
in vitro.[18]To demonstrate that mixtures
of complex coacervates can also form multiphase coacervates, we prepared
three combinations of three different coacervates, one with five components
in total (two polycations and three polyanions) and two with a common
polyanion in all coacervates. When we mixed the individually prepared
coacervates together (method 2), all combinations yielded hierarchical
three-phase droplets (Figure ), in which all coacervates are completely wetted by the shell
phase surrounding them. Fusion between domains can be observed at
all levels, illustrating the liquid nature of all coexisting phases
(Movie S5). Similar three-phase coacervates
could also be formed by first mixing like-charged species together,
followed by combination with the oppositely charged polymers at the
right salt concentration (method 1, see Figure S11). This illustrates that these three-phase droplets represent
a (local) equilibrium arrangement of the coacervate phases, which
ultimately coarsen to macroscopically separated phases.
Figure 6
Multiphase
complex coacervate droplets with three coexisting condensed
phases. (a,b) An ATP/PAH inner core, surrounded by a PSPMA/PDDA shell
in a PAA/PDDA outer coacervate phase, visualized in bright-field (a)
and confocal fluorescence microscopy (b) with fluorescence from fluorescein-labeled
PSPMA. Note that (a) and (b) do not show the same position. (c,d)
PSPMA/PAH inner core, surrounded by a PSPMA/PDDA shell in a PSPMA/DEAE-Dex
coacervate phase, visualized at the same position in bright-field
(c) and confocal fluorescence microscopy (d) with fluorescence from
fluorescein-labeled PSPMA.
Multiphase
complex coacervate droplets with three coexisting condensed
phases. (a,b) An ATP/PAH inner core, surrounded by a PSPMA/PDDA shell
in a PAA/PDDA outer coacervate phase, visualized in bright-field (a)
and confocal fluorescence microscopy (b) with fluorescence from fluorescein-labeled
PSPMA. Note that (a) and (b) do not show the same position. (c,d)
PSPMA/PAH inner core, surrounded by a PSPMA/PDDA shell in a PSPMA/DEAE-Dex
coacervate phase, visualized at the same position in bright-field
(c) and confocal fluorescence microscopy (d) with fluorescence from
fluorescein-labeled PSPMA.
Conclusions
We have shown that a wide range of complex coacervates
are immiscible
and give rise to the formation of multiphase droplets in which multiple
condensed liquid phases coexist. A multilayer arrangement is favored
if the coacervate–coacervate interfacial tension is lower than
the interfacial tension of one of the coacervates with the surrounding
dilute phase. Inside a multiphase droplet, coacervates are likely
to remain demixed if they have dissimilar densities, which can be
inferred from differences in critical salt concentration. The coacervate
with the highest critical salt concentration typically has the highest
(charge) density and lowest water content, and is usually found at
the core of the multiphase droplets. Guest molecules can distribute
over all coexisting phases and become concentrated in one of the coacervates.Our findings show that condensate immiscibility may be a very general
feature in biological systems, as even condensates formed by the same
attractive interactions between opposite charges do not mix when the
components are sufficiently long. Our systematic analysis using model
systems, supported by simple theoretical arguments, offers guidelines
for understanding the physical and chemical requirements for liquid–liquid
multiphase separation and coexistence. Moreover, our ability to predict
and control these hierarchical multiphase complex coacervate droplets
opens new ways to design smart self-organized compartments for controlled
storage, catalytic conversion, and release of bioactive molecules.
Authors: Shana Elbaum-Garfinkle; Younghoon Kim; Krzysztof Szczepaniak; Carlos Chih-Hsiung Chen; Christian R Eckmann; Sua Myong; Clifford P Brangwynne Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Esra Te Brinke; Joost Groen; Andreas Herrmann; Hans A Heus; Germán Rivas; Evan Spruijt; Wilhelm T S Huck Journal: Nat Nanotechnol Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 39.213
Authors: Joseph R Simon; Nick J Carroll; Michael Rubinstein; Ashutosh Chilkoti; Gabriel P López Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Anna I Sulatskaya; Alexander A Maskevich; Irina M Kuznetsova; Vladimir N Uversky; Konstantin K Turoverov Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bercem Dutagaci; Grzegorz Nawrocki; Joyce Goodluck; Ali Akbar Ashkarran; Charles G Hoogstraten; Lisa J Lapidus; Michael Feig Journal: Elife Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 8.140