Until recently, developments in physics basically followed earlier work by mathematicians Think relativity following Riemannian geometry by 40 years. However in the past few decades, physicists have developed mathematical concepts before the mathematicians — think mirror symmetry which came out of string theory — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_symmetry_(string_theory). You may skip the following paragraph, but here is what it meant to mathematics — from a description of a 400+ page book by Amherst College’s own David A. Cox

Mirror symmetry began when theoretical physicists made some astonishing predictions about rational curves on quintic hypersurfaces in four-dimensional projective space. Understanding the mathematics behind these predictions has been a substantial challenge. This book is the first completely comprehensive monograph on mirror symmetry, covering the original observations by the physicists through the most recent progress made to date. Subjects discussed include toric varieties, Hodge theory, Kahler geometry, moduli of stable maps, Calabi-Yau manifolds, quantum cohomology, Gromov-Witten invariants, and the mirror theorem. This title features: numerous examples worked out in detail; an appendix on mathematical physics; an exposition of the algebraic theory of Gromov-Witten invariants and quantum cohomology; and, a proof of the mirror theorem for the quintic threefold.

Similarly, advances in cellular biology have come from chemistry. Think DNA and protein structure, enzyme analysis. However, cell biology is now beginning to return the favor and instruct chemistry by giving it new objects to study. Think phase transitions in the cell, liquid liquid phase separation, liquid droplets, and many other names (the field is in flux) as chemists begin to explore them. Unlike most chemical objects, they are big, or they wouldn’t have been visible microscopically, so they contain many, many more molecules than chemists are used to dealing with.

These objects do not have any sort of definite stiochiometry and are made of RNA and the proteins which bind them (and sometimes DNA). They go by any number of names (processing bodies, stress granules, nuclear speckles, Cajal bodies, Promyelocytic leukemia bodies, germline P granules. Recent work has shown that DNA may be compacted similarly using the linker histone [ PNAS vol. 115 pp.11964 – 11969 ’18 ]

The objects are defined essentially by looking at them. By golly they look like liquid drops, and they fuse and separate just like drops of water. Once this is done they are analyzed chemically to see what’s in them. I don’t think theory can predict them now, and they were never predicted a priori as far as I know.

No chemist in their right mind would have made them to study. For one thing they contain tens to *hundreds* *of different molecules*. Imagine trying to get a grant to see what would happen if you threw that many different RNAs and proteins together in varying concentrations. Physicists have worked for years on phase transitions (but usually with a single molecule — think water). So have chemists — think crystallization.

Proteins move in and out of these bodies in seconds. Proteins found in them do have low complexity of amino acids (mostly made of only a few of the 20), and unlike enzymes, their sequences are intrinsically disordered, so forget the key and lock and induced fit concepts for enzymes.

Are they a new form of matter? Is there any limit to how big they can be? Are the pathologic precipitates of neurologic disease (neurofibrillary tangles, senile plaques, Lewy bodies) similar. There certainly are plenty of distinct proteins in the senile plaque, but they don’t look like liquid droplets.

It’s a fascinating field to study. Although made of organic molecules, there seems to be little for the organic chemist to say, since the interactions aren’t covalent. Time for physical chemists and polymer chemists to step up to the plate.