Max Haase
@maxhaase.bsky.social
Chief Yeast Officer. Evolution, genomes, chromatin, cell cycle, centromeres, and kinetochore are scientific passions. PhD w/ Jef Boeke, PostDoc w/ Andrea Musacchio @ MPI-Dortmund. 🇺🇸 (🧀->🗽) -> 🇩🇪
Very interesting study. You might also consider citing Saccharomycodes, which undergoes meiosis without crossovers, since it seems closely related to the topic here.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
Sex without crossing over in the yeast Saccharomycodes ludwigii - Genome Biology
Background Intermixing of genomes through meiotic reassortment and recombination of homologous chromosomes is a unifying theme of sexual reproduction in eukaryotic organisms and is considered crucial ...
link.springer.com
January 21, 2026 at 9:08 PM
Very interesting study. You might also consider citing Saccharomycodes, which undergoes meiosis without crossovers, since it seems closely related to the topic here.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
Quick intuition: a crowd is strongly correlated with a concert being loud. But it’s not logical to conclude “the crowd drives the music volume”—the concert (or the same upstream event: “show started”) generates both.
the key, "RNAPII cluster formation depends on transcription initiation"
the key, "RNAPII cluster formation depends on transcription initiation"
January 15, 2026 at 1:27 PM
Quick intuition: a crowd is strongly correlated with a concert being loud. But it’s not logical to conclude “the crowd drives the music volume”—the concert (or the same upstream event: “show started”) generates both.
the key, "RNAPII cluster formation depends on transcription initiation"
the key, "RNAPII cluster formation depends on transcription initiation"
I've never understood why people want an ecosystem where AI writes papers for AI audiences. I think us humans have lost the plot.
December 11, 2025 at 11:23 AM
I've never understood why people want an ecosystem where AI writes papers for AI audiences. I think us humans have lost the plot.
we are considering an organelle with a phospholipid monolayer as a membraneless compartment now? If so, then I must concede to you good sir
December 1, 2025 at 4:13 PM
we are considering an organelle with a phospholipid monolayer as a membraneless compartment now? If so, then I must concede to you good sir
Woof summary 🐕🦺
Hyman-style scaffold: main dog bed + visitors that mysteriously never change it
Musacchio: physics says visitors always change the pile
Assay: too toy-like, ignores the whole house
Conclusion: that brand of LLPS ≈ story first, physics later → pseudoscience
Hyman-style scaffold: main dog bed + visitors that mysteriously never change it
Musacchio: physics says visitors always change the pile
Assay: too toy-like, ignores the whole house
Conclusion: that brand of LLPS ≈ story first, physics later → pseudoscience
December 1, 2025 at 4:04 PM
Woof summary 🐕🦺
Hyman-style scaffold: main dog bed + visitors that mysteriously never change it
Musacchio: physics says visitors always change the pile
Assay: too toy-like, ignores the whole house
Conclusion: that brand of LLPS ≈ story first, physics later → pseudoscience
Hyman-style scaffold: main dog bed + visitors that mysteriously never change it
Musacchio: physics says visitors always change the pile
Assay: too toy-like, ignores the whole house
Conclusion: that brand of LLPS ≈ story first, physics later → pseudoscience
Put together, the argument is:
The definition of the magic bed (scaffold) is physically inconsistent
The assay that “finds” them ignores half the system (the real solvent)
Yet we now claim there are lots of these magic beds in cells
The definition of the magic bed (scaffold) is physically inconsistent
The assay that “finds” them ignores half the system (the real solvent)
Yet we now claim there are lots of these magic beds in cells
December 1, 2025 at 4:04 PM
Put together, the argument is:
The definition of the magic bed (scaffold) is physically inconsistent
The assay that “finds” them ignores half the system (the real solvent)
Yet we now claim there are lots of these magic beds in cells
The definition of the magic bed (scaffold) is physically inconsistent
The assay that “finds” them ignores half the system (the real solvent)
Yet we now claim there are lots of these magic beds in cells
Musacchio’s complaint:
You can’t go from
“one dog curled up on a cushion in an empty room”
to
“this is a universal, self-organizing bed that runs all nap-piles in all houses.”
That’s a huge leap.
You can’t go from
“one dog curled up on a cushion in an empty room”
to
“this is a universal, self-organizing bed that runs all nap-piles in all houses.”
That’s a huge leap.
December 1, 2025 at 4:04 PM
Musacchio’s complaint:
You can’t go from
“one dog curled up on a cushion in an empty room”
to
“this is a universal, self-organizing bed that runs all nap-piles in all houses.”
That’s a huge leap.
You can’t go from
“one dog curled up on a cushion in an empty room”
to
“this is a universal, self-organizing bed that runs all nap-piles in all houses.”
That’s a huge leap.
Problem: real cells are not tiny clean rooms.
The solvent (cytosol) = the entire noisy house:
other dogs, toys, furniture, kids, treats, mess.
The assay basically ignores the whole house and only studies:
one dog + one cushion in a white box.
The solvent (cytosol) = the entire noisy house:
other dogs, toys, furniture, kids, treats, mess.
The assay basically ignores the whole house and only studies:
one dog + one cushion in a white box.
December 1, 2025 at 4:04 PM
Problem: real cells are not tiny clean rooms.
The solvent (cytosol) = the entire noisy house:
other dogs, toys, furniture, kids, treats, mess.
The assay basically ignores the whole house and only studies:
one dog + one cushion in a white box.
The solvent (cytosol) = the entire noisy house:
other dogs, toys, furniture, kids, treats, mess.
The assay basically ignores the whole house and only studies:
one dog + one cushion in a white box.
“But wait, people found lots of scaffolds!” you say.
Musacchio’s answer: they used a too-simple test:
Take one purified “dog” (protein)
Put it alone in a tiny, clean room (buffer)
Watch it curl up into a little lump
Declare: “Aha! Self-piling magic bed!”
Musacchio’s answer: they used a too-simple test:
Take one purified “dog” (protein)
Put it alone in a tiny, clean room (buffer)
Watch it curl up into a little lump
Declare: “Aha! Self-piling magic bed!”
December 1, 2025 at 4:04 PM
“But wait, people found lots of scaffolds!” you say.
Musacchio’s answer: they used a too-simple test:
Take one purified “dog” (protein)
Put it alone in a tiny, clean room (buffer)
Watch it curl up into a little lump
Declare: “Aha! Self-piling magic bed!”
Musacchio’s answer: they used a too-simple test:
Take one purified “dog” (protein)
Put it alone in a tiny, clean room (buffer)
Watch it curl up into a little lump
Declare: “Aha! Self-piling magic bed!”
So, either:
no one really “binds” to the bed → it’s not a binding scaffold
or
they do bind → then the bed’s behavior must change
In this view, the official “scaffold that drives droplets but is unaffected by clients” is a unicorn dog bed. 🦄🛏️
no one really “binds” to the bed → it’s not a binding scaffold
or
they do bind → then the bed’s behavior must change
In this view, the official “scaffold that drives droplets but is unaffected by clients” is a unicorn dog bed. 🦄🛏️
December 1, 2025 at 4:04 PM
So, either:
no one really “binds” to the bed → it’s not a binding scaffold
or
they do bind → then the bed’s behavior must change
In this view, the official “scaffold that drives droplets but is unaffected by clients” is a unicorn dog bed. 🦄🛏️
no one really “binds” to the bed → it’s not a binding scaffold
or
they do bind → then the bed’s behavior must change
In this view, the official “scaffold that drives droplets but is unaffected by clients” is a unicorn dog bed. 🦄🛏️
In BOTH cases, bed + newcomers = new dog pile.
No “untouchable” magic bed.
No “untouchable” magic bed.
December 1, 2025 at 4:04 PM
In BOTH cases, bed + newcomers = new dog pile.
No “untouchable” magic bed.
No “untouchable” magic bed.