Phase separation and gene control: Many components of eukaryotic transcription machinery—such as transcription factors and cofactors including BRD4, subunits of the Mediator complex, and RNA polymerase II—contain intrinsically disordered low-complexity domains. Now a conceptual framework connecting the nature and behavior of their interactions to their functions in transcription regulation is emerging (see the Perspective by Plys and Kingston). Chong et al. found that low-complexity domains of transcription factors form concentrated hubs via functionally relevant dynamic, multivalent, and sequence-specific protein-protein interaction. These hubs have the potential to phase-separate at higher concentrations. Indeed, Sabari et al. showed that at super-enhancers, BRD4 and Mediator form liquid-like condensates that compartmentalize and concentrate the transcription apparatus to maintain expression of key cell-identity genes. Cho et al. further revealed the differential sensitivity of Mediator and RNA polymerase II condensates to selective transcription inhibitors and how their dynamic interactions might initiate transcription elongation. Science , this issue p. eaar2555 , p. eaar3958 , p. 412 ; see also p. 329

Folding of mammalian genomes into spatial domains is critical for gene regulation. The insulator protein CTCF and cohesin control domain location by folding domains into loop structures, which are widely thought to be stable. Combining genomic and biochemical approaches we show that CTCF and cohesin co-occupy the same sites and physically interact as a biochemically stable complex. However, using single-molecule imaging we find that CTCF binds chromatin much more dynamically than cohesin (~1–2 min vs. ~22 min residence time). Moreover, after unbinding, CTCF quickly rebinds another cognate site unlike cohesin for which the search process is long (~1 min vs. ~33 min). Thus, CTCF and cohesin form a rapidly exchanging 'dynamic complex' rather than a typical stable complex. Since CTCF and cohesin are required for loop domain formation, our results suggest that chromatin loops are dynamic and frequently break and reform throughout the cell cycle.

The idea that liquid–liquid phase separation (LLPS) may be a general mechanism by which molecules in the complex cellular milieu may self-organize has generated much excitement and fervor in the cell biology community. While this concept is not new, its rise to preeminence has resulted in renewed interest in the mechanisms that shape and drive diverse cellular self-assembly processes from gene expression to cell division to stress responses. In vitro biochemical data have been instrumental in deriving some of the fundamental principles and molecular grammar by which biological molecules may phase separate, and the molecular basis of these interactions. Definitive evidence is lacking as to whether the same principles apply in the physiological environment inside living cells. In this Perspective, we analyze the evidence supporting phase separation in vivo across multiple cellular processes. We find that the evidence for in vivo LLPS is often phenomenological and inadequate to discriminate between phase separation and other possible mechanisms. Moreover, the causal relationship and functional consequences of LLPS in vivo are even more elusive. We underscore the importance of performing quantitative measurements on proteins in their endogenous state and physiological abundance, as well as make recommendations for experiments that may yield more conclusive results.

Pol II Micro Clusters: In higher eukaryotes, messenger RNA (mRNA) synthesis is thought to involve foci of clustered RNA polymerase II (Pol II) called transcription factories. However, clustered Pol II have not been resolved in living cells, raising the debate about their existence in vivo and what role, if any, they play in nuclear organization and regulation of gene expression. Cisse et al. (p. 664 , published online 4 July; see the Perspective by Rickman and Bickmore ) developed single-molecule in vivo analyses revealing the distribution and dynamics of Pol II clustering in living cells. Pol II clusters were smaller than the diffraction limit (<250 nm). Transient dynamics of the Pol II clusters, and correlation with changes in transcription, pointed to a role in transcription initiation rather than in elongation.