Allen P Minton1. 1. Laboratory of Biochemistry and Genetics, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda 20892-0830, Maryland, United States.
Abstract
A simple method is described for the calculation of two- and three-dimensional phase diagrams describing stability and coexistence curves or surfaces separating one- and two-phase regions in composition/temperature space of a solution containing solute species 1 and 2. The calculation requires a quantitative description of the intermolecular potentials of mean force acting between like (1-1 and 2-2) and unlike (1-2) species. Example calculations are carried out for solutions of species interacting via spherically symmetric square-well potentials as first-order models for protein-protein interaction. When the interaction between species 1 and 2 is more repulsive than those acting between like species, the two-phase region is characterized by an equilibrium between a phase enriched in 1 and depleted in 2 and a phase enriched in 2 and depleted in 1. When the interaction between species 1 and 2 is more attractive than those acting between like species, the two-phase region is characterized by an equilibrium between a phase enriched in both species and a phase depleted in both species. The latter example provides a first-order description of coacervate formation without postulating specific interactions between the two solute species.
A simple method is described for the calculation of two- and three-dimensional phase diagrams describing stability and coexistence curves or surfaces separating one- and two-phase regions in composition/temperature space of a solution containing solute species 1 and 2. The calculation requires a quantitative description of the intermolecular potentials of mean force acting between like (1-1 and 2-2) and unlike (1-2) species. Example calculations are carried out for solutions of species interacting via spherically symmetric square-well potentials as first-order models for protein-protein interaction. When the interaction between species 1 and 2 is more repulsive than those acting between like species, the two-phase region is characterized by an equilibrium between a phase enriched in 1 and depleted in 2 and a phase enriched in 2 and depleted in 1. When the interaction between species 1 and 2 is more attractive than those acting between like species, the two-phase region is characterized by an equilibrium between a phase enriched in both species and a phase depleted in both species. The latter example provides a first-order description of coacervate formation without postulating specific interactions between the two solute species.
The
study of liquid–liquid phase separation (LLPS) in solution
dates back to classical investigations of the solution properties
of synthetic and natural polymers.[1,2] Renewed interest
in the subject has recently been engendered by the discovery of membraneless
organelles within living cells that have been tentatively identified
as immiscible liquid phases.[3−6] The membraneless organelles contain high concentrations
of one or more proteins and/or nucleic acids and are thought to provide
special microenvironments in which the rates and equilibria of critical
biochemical reactions may be modulated or for sequestration of toxic
substances.[5,7]The present work concerns two classes
of liquid–liquid phase
transitions in solutions of two solute species, which we shall call
species 1 and 2. In the first class, termed segregative transitions,[8] one phase is enriched (relative to
the total composition) in species 1 and depleted (relative to the
total composition) in species 2, which the second phase is enriched
in species 2 and depleted in species 1. In the second class, termed associative transitions,[8] one
phase is enriched in both solute species and the second phase is depleted
in both solute species. The liquid phase that is enriched in both
solutes is commonly referred to as a complex coacervate.[1]Most theoretical analyses of the thermodynamics
of LLPS in solutions
of two macromolecular solute species follow the general approach pioneered
by Flory and colleagues,[2] according to
which two immiscible solution phases form when the free energy of
mixing the two solute species is positive. The free energy of mixing
is decomposed into enthalpic (or energetic) and entropic contributions,
and models for the composition dependence of each contribution are
specified (see for example refs (9) and (10)). A second general approach was proposed by Edmond and Ogston,[11] according to which the composition dependence
of the chemical potentials of each of the two species is calculated
or measured, and the composition of phase boundaries obtained by satisfying
conditions for thermodynamic stability and equilibrium. Analyses of
this type have been employed in studies of the properties of solutions
of mixed crystallins.[12−14]The major difference between the two approaches
is that the latter
does not require specification or quantitation of individual enthalpic
and entropic contributions to the total free energy of the solution.
It is therefore more general in principle, since it does not distinguish
between different types of biological macromolecules (proteins, nucleic
acids, and polysaccharides) mixtures of which would require qualitatively
different models for the enthalpy and entropy of mixing. Moreover,
as will be elaborated below, the composition dependence of the chemical
potentials of each solute species in a mixture may be experimentally
measured in a straightforward fashion via analysis of the composition
dependence of colligative properties of solutions of individual species
and their mixtures. For this reason, in the present work we shall
adopt and extend the free-energy-based approach of Edmond and Ogston,[11] and will demonstrate that it is capable of exhibiting
equilibrium behavior that is characteristic of both segregative and
associative phase transitions.In the following section, the
calculation of composition-dependent
chemical potentials is described. Next the calculation of composition-
and temperature-dependent stability boundaries (spinodals) and equilibrium
phase boundaries (binodals) and determination of solution composition
within the two-phase region is described. Then, results of example
calculations exhibiting properties of both segregative and associative
LLPS are presented. Finally, the significance of these results is
discussed, and comparisons are drawn with other treatments of LLPS.
Methods
Specification
of Solute Chemical Potentials
The chemical
potential, or free energy increment, of solute species i in a solution of an arbitrary number of solute species may be generally
written aswhere μ0 denotes the
standard
state chemical potential, R is the molar gas constant, T is the absolute temperature, c is the molar concentration of species i, γ is the thermodynamic activity
coefficient of species i, and {c} is the concentrations of all solute species. ln γ is a direct measure of the equilibrium average free
energy of interaction per mole between a solute molecule of species i and all the other solute molecules in the solution. As
will be seen below, this quantity and its derivatives with respect
to solute concentrations will be utilized to directly calculate LLPS
phase boundaries.The first step in simplifying our approach
to the analysis of phase equilibria in solutions is recognition that
the mathematical description of the equilibrium thermodynamic properties
of solutions is isomorphic to that of a fluid of solute particles,[15] provided that the potentials of direct interaction
(i.e., through vacuum) between the solute particles in the fluid are
replaced by a potential of mean force acting between solute molecules
in solution, defined as follows for the interaction between two molecules:The first term on the right side
of eq denotes the free
energy
of the solution when the centers of molecules i and j are separated by distance r with a mutual
orientation denoted by the generalized variable ω, and the second
term denotes the free energy of the solution when the molecules are
separated by a sufficiently large distance such that the free energy
of the solution is no longer a function of r. The
potential of mean force acting between solute molecules i and j in solution thus incorporates not only direct
interaction between the two solute molecules but also contributions
to the free energy of interaction due to solvent and all solute species
except molecules i and j. According
to the McMillan–Mayer theory of solutions,[15] the thermodynamic activity coefficients of each of two
solvent species in solution may be expanded in powers of solute concentration
according towhere the two-body interaction coefficients B are defined as functions
of the potential of mean force acting between molecules of species i and j, and the three-body interaction
coefficients B are
defined as functions of the potential of mean force acting between
molecules of species i, j, and k. When truncated after three-body terms, eqs and 4 are
valid only over a restricted range of concentrations, the upper limit
of which depends upon the strength of the intermolecular interactions
under a particular set of experimental conditions.There are
three unique two-body interaction coefficients and four
unique three-body interaction coefficients. These seven interaction
coefficients are the only input required in order to calculate phase
diagrams, provided that the concentration is sufficiently low that
truncation of eqs and 4 after three-body terms is valid. They may be evaluated
experimentally via measurement of the composition dependence of any
of three thermodynamically determined colligative properties of solution
mixtures–osmotic pressure,[16] sedimentation
equilibrium,[17] and light scattering.[18,19] They may also be evaluated computationally given suitable relations
for the potential of mean force acting between two and three solute
molecules in solution as a function of the relative distances and
orientations of the interacting molecules.[13,14,20] A simplified version of this last option
is presented below.
Specification of Potential of Mean Force
Acting between Solute
Molecules
In order to demonstrate our simplified approach
to the calculation of LLPS phase diagrams, we shall evaluate the B and B, and via eqs and 4, the chemical potentials
of each of two solute species in a mixture interacting via square-well
potentials of mean force using an analytical formalism due to Kihara.[21,22] Relations derived by Kihara, specifying the interaction-dependent
values of B and B, are presented in the appendix
to ref (23). The three
two-body and four three-body interaction coefficients so calculated
have been found to accurately describe the activity coefficients of
each solute species as a function of composition in mixtures of model
square-well interacting solutes at total volume fractions of up to
0.2, as calculated via Monte Carlo simulations.[23] It is evident that the SW potential is only a crude approximation
to any real potential of mean force acting between real biological
macromolecules. However, it does incorporate the two major features
of any real potential of mean force: a “hard” steric
repulsion and a “soft” longer-ranged attraction or repulsion.
Moreover, it will be shown subsequently that results obtained with
this very simple model can reproduce qualitatively the phase separation
behavior exhibited by real protein and polymer solutions.For
the purpose of demonstration, we define the steric radius of an effectively
spherical molecule to be equal to the radius of a hard sphere with
the same mass and density as the actual molecule.where M denotes the molar mass of
species i, v̅ is the partial specific
volume, and NA is Avogadro’s number.
The square-well potential of interaction between molecules of species i and j is then defined as follows:where r denotes the distance between the centers of molecules
of species i and j, ε is the depth (or height) of the square
well, k is the Boltzmann constant, and L is a scaling parameter relating the
range of the square-well
interaction to the sizes of the two interacting molecules. For convenience
we shall subsequently introduce the variable ε* ≡ ε/kT to denote the value of ε in units of the thermal
energy kT. This potential is shown schematically
in Figure . Effective
interactions between two species of solute molecules in solution are
thus defined by the parameters r1, r2, ε11*, ε22*, ε12*, L11, L22, and L12. In
the calculations to follow we shall assume for the purposes of demonstration
that the partial specific volumes of the interacting macromolecules
are equal to 0.73 cm3/g, an average value for globular
proteins,[24] so the values of r1 and r2 are determined by
the corresponding molar masses.
Figure 1
Plot of square-well potential of mean
force as a function of the
center-to-center distance between two interacting spherical molecules
of species i and j.
Plot of square-well potential of mean
force as a function of the
center-to-center distance between two interacting spherical molecules
of species i and j.
Determination of Phase Boundaries
Stability Boundaries (Spinodals)
Compositions lying
on the spinodal are characterized by a free energy surface that is
concave down in at least one direction in composition space, so any
small fluctuation in composition will lead to a rapid phase separation
termed spinodal decomposition. According to the fluctuation theory
of light scattering in a solution of two scattering solute species,[18,25] at spinodal compositions the scattering intensity will diverge,
leading to the conditionEvaluation of the composition-dependent activity
coefficients of species 1 and 2 and their partial derivatives via eqs and 4 together with the numeric solution of eq permits calculation of the spinodal curves.
Equilibrium Phase Boundaries (Binodals)
Compositions
lying on an equilibrium boundary must satisfy the condition that the
chemical potential, or free energy increment, of each solute species
must be equal in both phases.where
the superscript indicates the phase.
Since the standard state chemical potential of each species is independent
of composition and therefore identical in both phases, eqs and 9 are
equivalent towhere Δμ ≡ (μ –
μ0)/RT = ln c ln γ(T, {c}). Solution of these equations leads
to a set
of pairs of equilibrium compositions (c1I, c2I) and (c1II, c2II), which may be connected by straight tie-lines. Any total
composition (c1, c2, T) within the two-phase region will lie
on a tie-line connecting one pair of these equilibrium compositions,
and the volume fraction of phase II will be given byThe numeric solution of eqs and 11 for the entire
set of equilibrium concentrations is prohibitively computationally
intensive in the general case. For example, if one wished to explore
a range of concentrations in w1 and w2 with a resolution of 100 points in each concentration
range, one would have to evaluate chemical potentials for 1004 combinations of concentrations. In the present work, we restrict
calculation of binodals to the symmetric case: M1= M2, L11= L22, and ε11* = ε22*, permitting calculational
shortcuts as described in the Supporting Information.
Simulating Temperature Dependence of Phase Transitions
We define a reference temperature T0,
a reference value of ε* = ε/kT0, and the relative temperature Trel = T/T0. In principle, one should allow for the temperature-dependence
of intermolecular interactions. Without specifying the nature of these
interactions, we may writewhere the
value of α indicates whether
the strength of the underlying interaction increases (α >
0)
or decreases (α < 0) with temperature. In order to simulate
the temperature dependence of phase transitions, values of α
and ε* are specified, corresponding to a relative
temperature of unity. Then binodal compositions are calculated as
described above for each of an array of increasing values of Trel. If α < 1, then the absolute value
of ε*(Trel) diminishes
with increasing Trel, such that at some
maximum value of T that we designate the critical
value TUC, or upper consolute temperature,
the phase boundary will vanish, and the solution will remain a single
phase at all temperatures greater than Tcrit. If, however, α > 1, then the absolute value of ε*(Trel) will increase with increasing Trel, in which case a solution existing as a
single phase at Trel = 1 may form two
phases above a critical temperature T, referred to as a lower consolute temperature (see
below).
Numerical Methods
Numeric solution of eqs , 4, 7, 10, and 11 was performed using user-written scripts and functions in
MATLAB (Mathworks, Natick MA) that are available upon request from
the author. The algorithms employed are described in the Supporting Information.
Results
Segregative
Phase Transition
Figure shows a phase diagram obtained from a calculation
carried out at a single temperature with the parameter values specified
in the caption. Note that the value of ε12* is more positive than either
ε11*or
ε22*,
indicating that the interaction between molecules of unlike species
is more repulsive than the interaction between molecules of either
like species. The blue curve indicates the spinodal, and the red curve
indicates the binodal. The dashed tie-line connects the compositions
of two equilibrium phases: (w1I = 224,w2I = 33.5) and (w1II = 33.5,w2II = 224). Symmetry dictates that the chemical
potentials of each solute is the same in both phases. Qualitatively
similar results were obtained from other simulations in which the
interaction between unlike species is more repulsive than the interactions
between like species.
Figure 2
Phase diagram at fixed temperature for symmetric segregative
interactions
between two solute species. Results of calculations carried out for M1 = M2 = 70 000, L11 = L22 = L12 = 1.25, ε11* = −0.5, ε22*= −0.5, and ε12* = 2. The spinodal
is plotted in blue and the binodal in red. The dashed tie-line connects
two phases with equilibrium compositions (224, 33.5) and (33.5, 224).
Phase diagram at fixed temperature for symmetric segregative
interactions
between two solute species. Results of calculations carried out for M1 = M2 = 70 000, L11 = L22 = L12 = 1.25, ε11* = −0.5, ε22*= −0.5, and ε12* = 2. The spinodal
is plotted in blue and the binodal in red. The dashed tie-line connects
two phases with equilibrium compositions (224, 33.5) and (33.5, 224).An experimental measurement of phase equilibria
in a solution mixture
of two polymers[11] yields a phase diagram,
shown in Figure ,
that resembles qualitatively the calculated binodal in Figure .
Figure 3
Binodal curve separating
one-phase region (lower left) from two-phase
region (upper right) in a solution mixture of PEG-6000 (species 1)
and Dextran 19.7 (species 2). Data from Edmond and Ogston.[11]
Binodal curve separating
one-phase region (lower left) from two-phase
region (upper right) in a solution mixture of PEG-6000 (species 1)
and Dextran 19.7 (species 2). Data from Edmond and Ogston.[11]Figure shows the
results of a calculation carried out at multiple temperatures as described
above, with parameter values specified in the figure caption. The
left panel is a projection of the three-dimensional phase diagram
onto the composition axis. The blue curves are binodals calculated
at various relative temperatures plotted as functions of solution
composition. Since α is set equal to 0, the absolute values
of ε*(Trel) diminish
with increasing Trel. The left panel shows
that with increasing temperature, binodals trend toward the upper
right-hand corner. The red curve defines the intersection between
the binodal surface and a vertical plane connecting compositions denoted
by (w1, w2) of (0, 240) and (240, 0), indicating the critical temperature for
a solution of the corresponding composition. At temperatures exceeding
this value the solution exists as a single phase, and a temperatures
below this value, at equilibrium the solution exists as a mixture
of two phases. As an example, the horizontal tie-line plotted at Trel = 1.18 connects two phases with compositions
(59.9, 108.5) and (180.5, 59.9). The black dot indicates the value
of the critical temperature at a solution composition of (120, 120).
Figure 4
Temperature-dependent
phase diagram for symmetric segregative interactions
between two solute species. Results of calculations carried out for M1 = M2 = 70 000, L11 = L22 = L12 = 1.25, ε11,0* = ε22,0*= −0.5, ε12,0* = 2, and α = 0. Left
panel: projection of the three-dimensional binodal surface onto the
composition axis. Right panel: binodals calculated for various relative
temperatures plotted as a function of composition. The red curve represents
the intersection of the binodal surface with a vertical plane extending
between (0, 240) and (240, 0), the meaning of which is described in
the text.
Temperature-dependent
phase diagram for symmetric segregative interactions
between two solute species. Results of calculations carried out for M1 = M2 = 70 000, L11 = L22 = L12 = 1.25, ε11,0* = ε22,0*= −0.5, ε12,0* = 2, and α = 0. Left
panel: projection of the three-dimensional binodal surface onto the
composition axis. Right panel: binodals calculated for various relative
temperatures plotted as a function of composition. The red curve represents
the intersection of the binodal surface with a vertical plane extending
between (0, 240) and (240, 0), the meaning of which is described in
the text.An experimental measurement of
phase equilibria in a solution mixture
of two polymers carried out at multiple temperatures[26] yields a three-dimensional phase diagram, shown in Figure , that qualitatively
resembles the calculated diagram in Figure .
Figure 5
Composition–temperature phase diagram
for a solution mixture
of soluble gelatin (weight-average molar mass = 170 kg) and dextran
(weight-average molar mass = 282 kg). Data from Edelman et al.[26] Reproduced (with modification) with permission
from ref (26). Copyright
2001 American Chemical Society.
Composition–temperature phase diagram
for a solution mixture
of soluble gelatin (weight-average molar mass = 170 kg) and dextran
(weight-average molar mass = 282 kg). Data from Edelman et al.[26] Reproduced (with modification) with permission
from ref (26). Copyright
2001 American Chemical Society.
Associative Phase Transition
Figure shows a phase diagram calculated at a single
temperature with the parameter values shown in the figure caption.
The value of ε12* is more negative than either ε11*or ε22*, indicating that the interaction
between molecules of unlike species is more attractive than the interaction
between molecules of either like species. The left panel shows closed
binodal (red) and spinodal (blue) curves separating an exterior one-phase
region and an interior two-phase region. The dashed spinodal curve
is calculated via numerical solution of eq , as described in the Supporting Information. The solid spinodal and the binodal
curves are calculated using an approximate analysis of the composition
dependence of osmotic pressure, as described in Supporting Information. Two sample tie-lines are plotted,
each of which is connects points indicating phase compositions that
are depleted in both solute species and enriched in both solute species,
relative to any total composition lying along the tie-line. For example,
the uppermost tie-line plotted in red connects compositions of (21.1,
32.2) and (40.5, 55.4). In the right panel, the (relative) chemical
potentials of each of the two solute species are plotted as functions
of binodal composition, and it may be seen how the two compositions
indicated by the termini of each tie-line in the left-hand panel connect
points of equal chemical potential of each species in both phases,
satisfying eqs and 12. Qualitatively similar results were obtained from
other simulations in which the interaction between unlike species
is more attractive than the interactions between like species.
Figure 6
Results of
calculations carried out for M1 = M2 = 70 000, L11 = L22 = L12 = 1.25, ε11* = ε22* = −0.8, and ε12* = −2.5.
Left panel: phase diagram at a fixed temperature showing calculated
spinodal (blue) and binodal (red), with two sample tie-lines. Right
panel: relative chemical potentials of each solute species plotted
as a function of composition along the binodal curve. Points are plotted
for termini of each of the tie-lines shown in the left panel.
Results of
calculations carried out for M1 = M2 = 70 000, L11 = L22 = L12 = 1.25, ε11* = ε22* = −0.8, and ε12* = −2.5.
Left panel: phase diagram at a fixed temperature showing calculated
spinodal (blue) and binodal (red), with two sample tie-lines. Right
panel: relative chemical potentials of each solute species plotted
as a function of composition along the binodal curve. Points are plotted
for termini of each of the tie-lines shown in the left panel.An experimental measurement of phase equilibria
in a solution mixture
of two polymers[1] yields a phase diagram,
shown in Figure ,
that resembles qualitatively the calculated diagram in the left panel
of Figure .
Figure 7
Tie-lines connecting
compositions of equilibrium phases in a solution
mixture of gum arabic (species 1) and gelatin (species 2). Symbols:
data from Figure 6 of Bungenberg de Jong.[1] Blue dashed curve: smooth extrapolation of the data representing
a possible binodal curve connecting the data points.
Tie-lines connecting
compositions of equilibrium phases in a solution
mixture of gum arabic (species 1) and gelatin (species 2). Symbols:
data from Figure 6 of Bungenberg de Jong.[1] Blue dashed curve: smooth extrapolation of the data representing
a possible binodal curve connecting the data points.Figure shows a
temperature-dependent phase diagram calculated as described above,
with parameter values specified in the figure caption. In the left
panel the red and blue curves are binodals and spinodals, respectively,
calculated for each of a series of values of Trel, plotted as functions of composition. As the temperature
increases, the size of the two-phase region decreases and ultimately
vanishes when the temperature exceeds Tcrit, the value of T above which the solution remains
one-phase at all compositions. A symmetry axis defined by w1 = w2 = 0.5 wtot is drawn in black, connecting the compositions
of two phases coexisting at Trel = 1.04.
The combination of constant-temperature binodals defines a three-dimensional
region of two phases in composition/temperature space. In the right
panel, points are plotted to indicate the two intersections of the
binodal and two intersections of the spinodal at each temperature along the symmetry axis. These points
define composition–temperature binodal and spinodal curves
in the plane of the equal-concentration slice.
Figure 8
Simulated temperature
dependent phase diagram. Blue curves are
spinodals and red curves are binodals, calculated as described in
the text, with M1 = M2 = 70 000, L11 = L22 = L12 = 1.25,
α = 0, ε11,0* = ε22,0* = −0.8, and ε12,0*= −2.5. The dotted black line
in the left panel is the axis of symmetry (w1 = w2), and the marked points
on the binodal and spinodal curves represent the values of the binodal
and spinodal compositions along the axis of symmetry. These points
are replotted as a function of total composition in the right panel.
Simulated temperature
dependent phase diagram. Blue curves are
spinodals and red curves are binodals, calculated as described in
the text, with M1 = M2 = 70 000, L11 = L22 = L12 = 1.25,
α = 0, ε11,0* = ε22,0* = −0.8, and ε12,0*= −2.5. The dotted black line
in the left panel is the axis of symmetry (w1 = w2), and the marked points
on the binodal and spinodal curves represent the values of the binodal
and spinodal compositions along the axis of symmetry. These points
are replotted as a function of total composition in the right panel.While we have so far been unable to find a published
experimental
measurement of associative LLPS at multiple temperatures with which
to compare our calculated results, Figure shows experimental results obtained at multiple
salt concentrations. Increasing salt concentration, like increasing
temperature, will diminish the strength of electrostatic intermolecular
interactions, and one would expect the effect of increasing salt concentration
to qualitatively resemble the effect of increasing temperature.
Figure 9
Compositions
of phases in equilibrium in mixtures of gum arabic
(species 1) and gelatin (species 2) at various concentrations of CaCl.
Symbols: data from Figure 7 of Bungenberg de Jong.[1] Black dotted line indicates axis of equal w/v concentrations
of the two polymers and connects compositions of equilibrium phases
at 4% salt. Dashed red curves are smooth extrapolations of the data
representing possible binodals. Right panel is a
plot of the points at all salt concentrations along the equal w/v
composition axis. Blue curve in right panel is a cubic polynomial
fit to the points, plotted to guide the eye.
Compositions
of phases in equilibrium in mixtures of gum arabic
(species 1) and gelatin (species 2) at various concentrations of CaCl.
Symbols: data from Figure 7 of Bungenberg de Jong.[1] Black dotted line indicates axis of equal w/v concentrations
of the two polymers and connects compositions of equilibrium phases
at 4% salt. Dashed red curves are smooth extrapolations of the data
representing possible binodals. Right panel is a
plot of the points at all salt concentrations along the equal w/v
composition axis. Blue curve in right panel is a cubic polynomial
fit to the points, plotted to guide the eye.
Discussion
The resemblance between the calculated results
shown in the previous
section and the experimental results with which they are compared
is qualitative rather than quantitative. For several reasons, this
is to be expected: (1) The square-well model for a potential of mean
force is clearly simplistic and used only to demonstrate application
of eqs ,4, and 7–9 to the calculation of spinodal and binodal curves. (2) Equation , used to simulate
a temperature-dependent phase diagram respectively, is heuristic and
meant only to capture qualitative effects. (3) The experimental results
cited for comparison with calculations were obtained using mixtures
of polymers that are quite heterogeneous rather than individual species
as specified in the model. Nevertheless, the correspondence between
calculated and experimental phase diagrams is clear. When interaction
between unlike species is less favorable than that between like species,
the predicted tie-lines connect phases enriched in one species and
depleted in the other, characteristic of segregative LLPS, and when
interaction between unlike species is more favorable than that between
like species, the predicted tie-lines connect phases enriched in both
species with phases depleted in both species, characteristic of associative
LLPS or coacervate formation.The phase diagrams shown in Figures and 5 exhibit upper consolute
temperatures, indicating that a decrease in temperature favors phase
separation. Such behavior is often observed,[8,10] but
systems exhibiting lower consolute temperatures exist as well,[27] where phase separation is induced upon increasing
temperature. The appearance of phase separation with increasing temperature
indicates that intermolecular interactions are strengthened with increasing
temperature. Such systems may be qualitatively simulated by the method
introduced here, provided that calculations are performed using eq with a value of α
exceeding 1, as shown in Supporting Information.The phenomenon of LLPS has been observed in mixtures of two
polymers,[1,8] mixtures of a polymer and a protein,[28−30] and in mixtures of two
proteins.[14,31−33] The thermodynamic approach
to calculation of LLPS in solutions of two solutes pioneered by Edmond
and Ogston[11] and generalized here may be
applied to the analysis of all of these phenomena, whereas the classical
approach employing separate models for the energy (or enthalpy) and
entropy of mixing of two solute species must be tailored specifically
for each mixture. For example, the frequent utilization of Flory–Huggins
mean-field theory[2] to estimate the entropy
of mixing of two solutes clearly does not apply when one or both of
the solutes are not polymers, and models proposed for interaction
of different types of macromolecules clearly vary qualitatively with
the nature of the macromolecules. In contrast, the values of the interaction
coefficients B and B appearing in eqs and 4 comprise
the totality of information required to perform the calculations presented
here. The combination of eqs , 4, and 7 informs
us that a spinodal boundary will occur at all solution compositions
(c1, c2) satisfying
the model-independent relationwhereAs pointed out above,
the required values
of the B and B may be obtained by means
of model functions for the potentials of mean force, as in the present
work and in refs (12−14) by molecular dynamics or Monte
Carlo computer simulations,[34] or from experimental
measurement of the composition dependence of colligative properties
such as static light scattering,[18,19] sedimentation
equilibrium,[17] or osmotic pressure.[16,35] While the methods of calculating binodals presented here is limited
to symmetrically interacting systems, the calculation of spinodals
via solution of eq is
applicable to asymmetrically as well as symmetrically interacting
systems, as shown in Figure . If an experimentally measured set of measured values of B and B results in a predicted spinodal, then
one may be confident that the solution will exhibit a liquid–liquid
phase separation when the total composition falls within the predicted
spinodal boundary. In contrast, solutions with compositions falling
between the binodal and spinodal may or may not separate into two
phases, depending upon whether the solution has or has not achieved
thermodynamic equilibrium.
Figure 10
Spinodal boundaries calculated for symmetrically
and asymmetrically
interacting solute mixtures by numerical solution of eq . Black spinodal is calculated for
a symmetrically interacting mixture with the parameters given in the
caption of Figure . The blue and red spinodals are calculated for asymmetrically interacting
solute mixtures with the following interaction potentials. Blue: L as above. Black: ε11* = −0.7,
ε22* =
−0.8, and ε12* = −2.5. Red: L11 = 1.25, L22 = 1.28, L12 = 1.25, ε11* = −0.7, ε22* = −0.8, and ε12* = −2.5.
Black dotted line is the symmetry axis.
Spinodal boundaries calculated for symmetrically
and asymmetrically
interacting solute mixtures by numerical solution of eq . Black spinodal is calculated for
a symmetrically interacting mixture with the parameters given in the
caption of Figure . The blue and red spinodals are calculated for asymmetrically interacting
solute mixtures with the following interaction potentials. Blue: L as above. Black: ε11* = −0.7,
ε22* =
−0.8, and ε12* = −2.5. Red: L11 = 1.25, L22 = 1.28, L12 = 1.25, ε11* = −0.7, ε22* = −0.8, and ε12* = −2.5.
Black dotted line is the symmetry axis.Although the analysis of LLPS from the standpoint of chemical potential
was pioneered by Edmond and Ogston (EO),[11] the work presented here is considerably more general than the original:
(1) The present work takes into account three-body solute–solute
interactions, whereas EO took into account only two-body interactions,
and thus is applicable at higher solute concentrations. (2) Unlike
EO, the present work provides a protocol for calculation of spinodals.
(3) The present work provides methods for calculating phase-diagrams
for associative LLPS, including both spinodals (in general) and binodals
(in special cases), whereas EO did not treat associative LLPS at all.At the phenomenological level considered here, solvent, small-molecule
solutes such as salts, and temperature are treated implicitly rather
than explicitly. However, in order to arrive at a quantitative mechanistic
description of the effects of solvent, small molecules, or temperature
on LLPS in a solution containing two specific macromolecular solutes,
a quantitative analysis of the dependence of the potentials of mean
force acting between molecules of like and unlike macromolecular solutes
upon each of these factors will ultimately have to be incorporated.
Such information may be obtained experimentally through measurements
of the effect of varying temperature or salinity upon the solution
properties listed above or via sufficiently detailed computer simulation.Finally, we emphasize that the “simple” calculation
of phase diagrams presented here is rapid. Using a generic desktop
personal computer running MATLAB (Mathworks, Natick, MA), together
with scripts and functions incorporating algorithms described in the Supporting Information, a phase diagram such
as that shown in Figure may be generated in a few seconds and that shown in Figure within a minute. This rapidity
allows the investigator to explore a large parameter space including
variations in molecular size, and the strength and range of both attractive
and repulsive interactions between like and unlike molecules in solution
mixtures over a wide range of composition and temperature.
Authors: Sangsik Kim; Jun Huang; Yongjin Lee; Sandipan Dutta; Hee Young Yoo; Young Mee Jung; YongSeok Jho; Hongbo Zeng; Dong Soo Hwang Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Yanxian Lin; James McCarty; Jennifer N Rauch; Kris T Delaney; Kenneth S Kosik; Glenn H Fredrickson; Joan-Emma Shea; Songi Han Journal: Elife Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Pilong Li; Sudeep Banjade; Hui-Chun Cheng; Soyeon Kim; Baoyu Chen; Liang Guo; Marc Llaguno; Javoris V Hollingsworth; David S King; Salman F Banani; Paul S Russo; Qiu-Xing Jiang; B Tracy Nixon; Michael K Rosen Journal: Nature Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 49.962