1: \documentclass[aps,pre,twocolumn,endfloats]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[aps,pre,twocolumn,endfloats,nobalancelastpage]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{psfrag}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{bm}
7:
8: \newcommand{\cz}[0]{[\makebox[0.2cm]{ }]}
9: \newcommand{\Tau}[0]{{\cal T}}
10:
11: \parskip=5pt
12:
13: %\topmargin=-1.5cm
14: %\textheight=24.0cm
15: %\textwidth=16.0cm
16: %\oddsidemargin=-0.2cm
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \bibliographystyle{plain}
21:
22: %\draft
23:
24: \title{The interplay between chemical reactions and transport in
25: structured spaces}
26:
27: \author{Zoran Konkoli}
28: \email{zorank@fy.chalmers.se}
29: \affiliation{
30: Department of Applied Physics,\\
31: Chalmers University of Technology and G\"oteborg University, \\
32: SE-412 96 G\"oteborg, Sweden
33: }
34: \date{\today}
35:
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: There are many instances in nature where geometry of the system that
39: sustains chemical reactions is structured and the living cell is a
40: typical example. There is a high degree of compartmentalization in the
41: living cell where various compartments sustain different chemical
42: reactions and transport reactants among themselves. In order to avoid
43: storage facilities reactants are routed in orderly fashion between
44: various places in the cell interior with large degree of
45: synchronization. It is exactly such situation that is investigated
46: here. The main motivation behind this study is to understand interplay
47: between reactions and transport in a geometries that are not
48: compact. Typical examples of compact geometries are box, sphere,
49: etc. On the other hand, a network made of containers
50: $C_1,C_2,\ldots,C_N$ and tubes is a typical example of space that is
51: structured, and such non compact space is main focus on this
52: study. The whole space is divided into a two regions. First, in
53: containers particles react with rate $\lambda$. Second, tubes
54: connecting containers allow for exchange of chemicals with transport
55: rate $D$. In such a way the two most important processes are isolated
56: in the problem, reactions and transport. By varying topology of such
57: network and details of chemical reactions it is possible to gain some
58: understanding of interplay between chemical reactions and transport in
59: structured spaces. It assumed that the number of reactants in the
60: system is so small that kinetics is noise dominated. Two methods for
61: solving corresponding master equation are discussed. The computer
62: simulation is easy to implement, but leads to the results that are not
63: that accurate. In here, a method is presented that can be used to
64: calculate average, variance, and higher moments of the time reaction
65: needs to finish. The method relies on a matrix representation of the
66: master equation and is in principle exact. It works for an arbitrary
67: reaction scheme and network topology. A number of different chemical
68: reactions were studied and their performance compared in a various
69: ways. Reactions are grouped into two ensembles, Reaction on a Fixed
70: Geometry Ensemble (ROGE) and Geometry on a Fixed Reaction Ensemble
71: (GORE). The ROGE and GORE are used to classify reactions in order to
72: gain some understanding of which types of chemical reactions draw most
73: benefit from the structured spaces. Most important findings are as
74: follows. (i) There is a large number of reactions that run faster in a
75: network like geometry. Such reactions contain antagonistic catalytic
76: influences in the intermediate stages of a reaction scheme that is
77: best dealt with in a network like structure. (ii) Antagonistic catalytic
78: influences are hard to identify since they are strongly connected to
79: the pattern of injected molecules (inject pattern) and depend on the
80: choice of molecules that have to be synthesized at the end (task
81: pattern). (iii) The reaction time depends strongly on the details of the
82: inject and task patterns.
83: \end{abstract}
84:
85:
86: \pacs{}
87:
88: \maketitle
89:
90:
91: %\begin{multicols}{2}
92:
93: %\narrowtext
94:
95: \section{Introduction}
96:
97:
98: The goal of the present study is to impact some progress in
99: understanding interplay between reactions and transport in structured
100: spaces. There are many questions one could ask. This study focuses on
101: one: How strongly the geometry of the system (e.g., topology and shape
102: of the boundaries) influences the particular reaction schemes it
103: harbors? This question can be asked in two ways. First, assuming that
104: spatial structure is fixed, which reaction scheme would draw most
105: benefit from it, for example, in terms of speed (smaller execution
106: time) or better timing (reduction of noise level)? Second, given the
107: chemical reaction, what is the topology that is mostly suited for it?
108: In order words, in which ways should one alter geometry of the system
109: (without altering reactants or influencing reaction mechanisms in any
110: other way) in order to speed up chemical reaction encapsulated inside?
111: Answers to these questions are relevant to a number of topics ranging
112: from understanding of physio-chemical processes in the living cell,
113: biological evolution, towards chemical engineering and biotechnology.
114:
115: Taking the living cell as an example. The living cell exhibits large
116: degree of spatial organization. Various compartments sustain different
117: chemical reactions and transport reactants among themselves, with a
118: high degree of spatial and temporal synchronization. Reactants and
119: products of reaction are transported where they are needed, exactly at
120: the right place and at the right time. There is no need of excessive
121: storage of molecules. For reviews on these topic
122: see~\cite{Nelsestuen,Kuthan}, and
123: refs.~\cite{Ganti,SSFA,MH,SMH1,SMH2,SZMH,SMH3,WQL,SQ,QQ} for other
124: interesting work. The topics related to temporal and spatial
125: synchronization of the cellular machinery are still hotly debated and
126: present work might offer some understanding of these
127: phenomena. Furthermore, thinking from evolutionary perspective, one
128: wonders what is that cells try to optimize by adopting highly
129: structured geometry?
130:
131: Evolutionary process occurred in two stages: the chemical
132: evolution~\cite{Calvin}, which lead to emergence of organic molecules
133: necessary for synthesis of proteins and anything alive, followed by
134: biological evolution~\cite{Volkenstein}, a process which started after
135: emergence of the first living cell. Fairly little has been done in
136: understanding the role of geometry and spatial organization played in
137: the evolution process. There is already some pioneering work in this
138: area~\cite{Langton,Furusawa,Vespalcova,Ono,Boer}. Present study could
139: impact some progress in this direction.
140:
141: Besides the topics discussed, the question of interplay between
142: geometry and reaction scheme is relevant to a number of disciplines. The
143: chemical engineering and biotechnology are typical examples. In
144: general, there is a tendency to move away from bulk situation where
145: volumes are large and reactants many, towards more exotic regime where
146: reaction volumes are small and structured and number of reactants
147: relatively few. The interesting experimental work on these topics can
148: be found in refs.~\cite{Owe1,Owe2,Owe3,Owe4} and
149: \cite{Ross1,Ross2,Ross3}. The first set of references deals with
150: reactions in liposome networks, and second set addresses the situation
151: where a number of perfectly stirred reactors is connected by
152: tubes. The exchange of chemicals through tubes is driven by pumps. The
153: work done in here is relevant to both of these studies.
154:
155: The particular model proposed here is influenced by several lines of
156: research. The setup of the reaction schemes is inspired by the work
157: done on prebiotic evolution, genome-based evolution and random
158: reaction
159: networks~\cite{Bagley1,Bagley2,Farmer,Kauffman,Stadler,Schuster,Slanina,Jain},
160: and diffusion-controlled reactions in bulk
161: phase~\cite{Kotomin1,Kotomin2,CompChemKin,Kotomin3,Mikhailov1,Ovchinnikov}
162: and in restricted
163: geometries~\cite{McQuarrie1,Clifford1,Khairutdinov1,KKO}. The
164: geometrical setup of the model is motivated by the experimental
165: studies given in ~\cite{Owe1,Owe2,Owe3,Owe4,Ross1,Ross2,Ross3} and
166: theoretical study of reaction-diffusion neuron and enzymatic
167: neuron~\cite{Akingbehin,AkinCon,Conrad4,KirCon1,KirCon2,KamCon1,KamCon2}.
168:
169: The situation considered here is radically different from the bulk
170: studies. The goal is to mimic particular aspect of the cell
171: environment where reactions happen in the specific regions of space
172: and reactants move among these regions. The simplest way of achieving
173: such a setup is to consider chemical reactions in containers that are
174: connected by tubes. Figure~\ref{network} shows one possible
175: example. Reactants can move from container to another along tubes.
176: Thus, the compartmentalization is build into the model in the simplest
177: possible way. Furthermore, it is assumed that containers are small in
178: size so that the number of reactants in each container is also
179: small. Such setup inevitably leads to fluctuations, and chemical
180: kinetics becomes noisy, as is usual the case in the living cell.
181:
182: For simplicity reasons, the details, both of the chemical reactions and
183: transport, are neglected to a large extent. It is assumed that reactants
184: are point like objects with no structure. What is studied here can be
185: classified as artificial chemistry~\cite{Dittrich}. The two most
186: important time scales are traced in the model. The reaction rate
187: $\lambda$ describes how fast molecules react in containers. The
188: transport rate $D$ governs exchange of chemicals among containers. It
189: is assumed that diffusion is the dominant mechanism of particle
190: transport and this is reasonably good approximation for the living
191: cell.~\cite{Nelsestuen,Kuthan} Naturally, there are exceptions to this
192: rule, e.g. transport of molecules by kinesin along microtubule in the
193: cell, but such cases are not going to be considered here. For
194: discussion of reaction-diffusion systems in biology please see
195: ref.~\cite{Hess}.
196:
197: How to compare chemical reactions in a compact and structure
198: geometries depicted in Fig.~\ref{network} [panels (a) and (b)]?
199: Naturally, the most obvious way would be to run chemical dynamics
200: directly on structures depicted in panels (a) and (b) and try to trace
201: differences. However, it will be shown that this can also be done by
202: studying kinetics in network like geometry depicted in panel (c), but
203: such strategy has to be implemented carefully. For example, it is
204: easy to see that panel (c) in Fig.~\ref{network} is a very rough
205: representation of structured geometry in panel (b). However, there is
206: no apparent similarity between structures shown in panels (a) and
207: (c). Nevertheless, the network structure in (c) contains (a) and (b)
208: as special cases. For example, when $D\sim\lambda$ the reaction
209: dynamics occurring in the network depicted in panel (c) should exhibit
210: roughly the same features as the reaction dynamics running in the
211: structured geometry depicted in panel (b). Furthermore, when transport
212: rate dominates all other processes in the system, $D\gg\lambda$, same
213: should hold for (a) and (c). Also, in such a case, $D$ should be much
214: larger than any other reaction rate that might enter due to the
215: effects of catalysis. Thus, in order to gain some understanding of
216: differences between (a) and (b) one simply has to study variations of
217: a reaction dynamics in the network like structure (c) as transport
218: rate changes from $D\sim\lambda$ towards $D\gg\lambda$.
219:
220: The type of the analysis used is largely static. To understand in
221: which ways particular shape of the reaction volume influences chemical
222: kinetics (and vise versa) a large number of chemical reactions will be
223: analyzed and their performance compared. The set of reactions and
224: geometries chosen form an ensemble ${\cal
225: A}=\{o_\omega,\omega=1,\ldots,E\}$ where elements in ensemble are
226: pairs $o_\omega=({\rm reaction},{\rm geometry})$. The element $o_\omega$
227: will be referred to as an {\em organism}.
228:
229: Two ensembles are distinguished. In the first case, the reaction
230: scheme is kept fixed, while the geometry of the network is allowed to
231: change. This type of ensemble will be referred to as the geometry on
232: the (fixed) reaction ensemble (GORE). The geometries are different and
233: they are sampled by changing size of the containers and length of the
234: tubes. In the second case the geometry of the network is kept fixed,
235: while the reaction scheme is subject to a change. This type of the
236: ensemble will be referred to as the reaction on the (fixed) geometry
237: ensemble (ROGE). In this work most of the attention is on the ROGE
238: ensemble.
239:
240:
241: What is the measure of the good performance for a chemical reaction? In
242: here, focus will be on the time related issues such as the length of
243: catalytic cycles. The importance of the timing in the intra cellular process
244: has been discussed by Volkenstein \cite{Volkenstein}: `The most
245: important role in ontogeny is played by time factors, i.e. the time
246: relations in the synthesis of various proteins and the formation of
247: various cells and tissues. Even small changes in the timetable lead to
248: considerable morphological alternations...'. The setup presented here
249: allows for consideration of other performance criteria but these are
250: omitted due to the simplicity reasons.
251:
252: The time needed for a reaction to finish, $\Tau$, is a stochastic
253: variable and for a given reaction scheme and topology it will have
254: well defined distribution function $\Phi(t)$: the probability that
255: reaction finished within the time interval $[t,t+dt]$ is given by
256: $P(t<\Tau<t+dt)=\Phi(t)dt$. All information about reaction timing is
257: hidden in the distribution function $\Phi(t)$. In practise, it is very
258: hard to find $\Phi(t)$ for general reaction scheme and geometry. Also,
259: amount of information contained in $\Phi(t)$ is too large. It is more
260: fruitful to characterize $\Phi(t)$ in terms of few variables and in
261: this work we use two: the average time needed for reaction to complete
262: $\tau=\int_0^\infty t\Phi(t)dt$ and the variance $\sigma$ where
263: $\sigma^2=\int_0^\infty(t-\tau)^2\Phi(t)dt$. In such a way it is
264: possible to asses how {\em fast} reaction happens and how {\em noisy}
265: it is.
266:
267: Once performance criteria are quantified one faces optimization
268: problem of finding the best performer in a given ensemble ${\cal
269: A}$. In principle, the best performer will be the organism that
270: exhibits smallest value for $\tau$. Two strategies are used to find
271: such organism. First, one simply generates full ensemble, measures
272: performance of each element, and sorts performance at the end.
273: However, when number of elements in such ensemble is large another
274: optimization method has to be used. For example, when there is a need
275: for that, one can use a method described in
276: refs.~\cite{Akingbehin,AkinCon,Conrad4,KirCon1,KirCon2,KamCon1,KamCon2}.
277: This optimization method mimics process of evolution and belongs to
278: the class of genetic optimization algorithms. The terms evolution and
279: optimization will be used interchangeably through out the text.
280:
281:
282: The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{sec:model} the
283: reaction-diffusion model is defined in detail, and in
284: section~\ref{sec:dynamics} overview of the methods for solving the master
285: equation is given. The method of doing a computer simulation is reviewed
286: first. The method of finding moments of the time length of the catalytic
287: cycles is discussed in detail in the next
288: section~\ref{sec:moment_method}. Few simple reactions are discussed in
289: section~\ref{sec:ROGE1} where it is shown how to compare vastly
290: different reaction schemes. Section~\ref{sec:ROGE2} contains analysis
291: of ROGE ensemble made from two container network, two particle types,
292: all possible reactions, and full set of inject-task
293: patterns. Conclusions and outlook are given in
294: section~\ref{sec:discussion}.
295:
296: \section{The Model}
297: \label{sec:model}
298:
299: The reaction-diffusion model is defined as follows. Consider the set
300: of containers $C_i$ connected in a particular way by tubes with
301: lengths $l_{i,j}$; $i,j=1,\ldots,N$. It is possible that some
302: containers are not connected. Example of such structure is given in
303: Fig. 1. The containers harbor molecules $X_\alpha$;
304: $\alpha=1,2,\ldots,M$. Molecules are allowed to react only when in
305: the same container (provided there is a reaction they participate
306: in). Molecule $X_\alpha$ moves from the container $C_i$ to the
307: container $C_j$ with a rate $D^{\alpha\alpha}_{ij}$. Please note that
308: the expression for the transport rate is diagonal in the particle
309: index $\alpha$ (there is no change of particles while being
310: transported). This assumption could be easily relaxed. For simplicity
311: reasons it is assumed that $D^{\alpha\alpha}_{ij}=f(l_{ij})$ if the
312: link between container $i$ and $j$ exists, otherwise
313: $D^{\alpha\alpha}_{ij}=0$. Links are non-directional and transport
314: rates are same for all particles,
315: i.e. $D^{\alpha\alpha}_{ij}=D_{ij}=D_{ji}$. Please note that the
316: regular lattice is a special case of this very general model.
317: Structures like these can be found in the interior of the living
318: cells. Mapping is not exact, but there is a rough similarity.
319:
320: By assumption, the reactions only occur in the containers and not in
321: the tubes, and reactants mix well in the containers. Tubes serve only
322: as connectors of regions where reactions happen. With assumptions at
323: hand, to describe system at any time instant, it is sufficient to track
324: number of particles in each container. This greatly simplifies
325: calculations. Conformation of the system ${\bm c}$ is specified as
326: a occupancy of the containers,
327: %
328: \begin{equation}
329: {\bm c} = ({\bm n}_1,...,{\bm n}_i,...,{\bm n}_N)
330: \label{vecc}
331: \end{equation}
332: %
333: where vectors ${\bm n}_i$ $i=1,...,N$ describe particle content of
334: each container,
335: %
336: \begin{equation}
337: {\bm n}_i = (n_{1,i},...,n_{\alpha,i},...,n_{M,i})
338: \label{vecn}
339: \end{equation}
340: %
341: with $n_{\alpha,i}=0,1,2,...,\infty$ for $\alpha=1,...,M$ and $i=1,...,N$.
342: System makes random transitions between various configurations. A
343: configuration of the system, ${\bm c}$, changes when either reaction or
344: transport occur.
345:
346: For computational convenience, the very simple type of a reaction
347: scheme will be considered,
348: %
349: \begin{equation}
350: X_\alpha \stackrel{\pm X_\gamma}{\rightarrow} X_\beta
351: \label{reaction}
352: \end{equation}
353: %
354: where $X_\gamma$ is understood to influence conversion of $X_\alpha$
355: to $X_\beta$ either as catalyst ($+$) or suppressor ($-$). All
356: reactions that are allowed are assumed to have same reaction rate
357: $\lambda$. The reaction graph is specified by the reactivity matrix
358: ${\bm \Lambda}$. If reaction $X_\alpha\rightarrow X_\beta$ is allowed
359: $\Lambda_{\alpha,\beta}=1$ and equals zero otherwise. The reaction
360: graph is directed and matrix ${\bm \Lambda}$ is not necessarily symmetric.
361:
362:
363: The effect of catalyst or suppressor are modeled as follows. The bare
364: reaction rate $\lambda$ may be modified by the presence of other
365: reactants in the container $C_i$. It is assumed that each reaction
366: can have at most one catalyst or suppressor. On the other hand, it is
367: possible that one particle is catalyst (or suppressor) for more than
368: one reaction. For programming purposes it is sufficient to use array
369: $K_{\alpha,\beta}=\pm\gamma$ if $X_\gamma$ is catalyst ($+$) or
370: suppressor ($-$) for $X_\alpha\rightarrow X_\beta$ reaction.
371: $K_{\alpha,\beta}=0$ indicates that reaction does not have catalyst
372: nor suppressor. Also, it is assumed that the effects of the catalysis are
373: strongly enhanced. If there is some catalysis going on, it
374: completely dominates reaction scheme. Using these assumptions the
375: reaction rate for the reaction $X_\alpha\rightarrow X_\beta$ in the
376: container $C_i$ is given by
377: %
378: \begin{equation}
379: \lambda^i_{\alpha,\beta}({\bm n}_i) = \lambda\Lambda_{\alpha,\beta}
380: \left\{
381: \begin{array}{ll}
382: 1 & \kappa=0 \\
383: \xi & \kappa>0, \ n_{\kappa,i} > \delta_{\kappa,\alpha} \\
384: \frac{1}{\xi} & \kappa<0,\ n_{|\kappa |,i} > \delta_{|\kappa |,\alpha}
385: \end{array}
386: \right.
387: \label{catalysis}
388: \end{equation}
389: %
390: $\delta_{\alpha,\beta}$ is a Kronecker delta-function, $\xi>1$ denotes
391: catalysis enhancement factor, and $\kappa=K_{\alpha,\beta}$.
392: Equation~(\ref{catalysis}) is self explanatory for the exception of
393: possibly one term that we proceed to discuss. The condition
394: $n_{\kappa,i}>\delta_{\kappa,\alpha}$ ensures that there is no self
395: catalysis for the reaction of the type
396: %
397: \begin{equation}
398: X_\alpha\stackrel{X_\alpha}{\rightarrow}X_\beta
399: \label{selfcat}
400: \end{equation}
401: %
402: when there is only one $X_\alpha$ present in the container. One needs at
403: least two $X_\alpha$ in order to fell catalytic influence of
404: $X_\alpha$ on the reaction given in (\ref{selfcat}).
405:
406: The particular type of the reaction schemes considered here
407: (\ref{reaction}) is inspired by chemical processes in the living
408: cell. It is often that by action of enzymes certain input set of
409: chemicals is converted into output molecules by series of intermediate
410: reactions. It is exactly this aspect of cellular machinery which this
411: scheme tries to capture in the most simple way. The most general
412: reaction graph one can consider is shown in Fig.~\ref{diagram1}. The
413: graph indicates that cell machinery converts molecules
414: $X_1,...,X_\omega$ into molecules $X'_1,X'_2,...,X'_\eta$. The shaded
415: area in the middle denotes intermediate reaction steps that involve
416: arbitrary set of reactions between molecules already shown in the
417: graph. An additional particle types may appear in the shaded region.
418: It is possible to define the speed of a reaction as the time needed for the
419: predetermined set of output molecules $X'_1,X'_2,...,X'_\eta$ to
420: appear for the first time, provided only the input molecules were
421: present initially in the system. How this idea is implemented is shown
422: bellow.
423:
424: In addition to reaction scheme given in Eq.~(\ref{reaction}) two
425: quantities are specified. First, at $t=0$ a certain number of particles is
426: injected into the system in various containers. The list of the particles
427: injected is specified by the vector
428: %
429: \begin{equation}
430: {\bm \iota} = (n_{1,1}^{(0)},\ldots,n_{\alpha,i}^{(0)},\ldots,n_{M,N}^{(0)})
431: \label{inject}
432: \end{equation}
433: %
434: In the course of time the injected set of particles will
435: be transformed into something else. Second, the vector
436: %
437: \begin{equation}
438: {\bm \pi} = (n_{1,1}^{*},\ldots,n_{\alpha,i}^{*},\ldots,n_{M,N}^{*})
439: \label{task}
440: \end{equation}
441: %
442: specifies tasks that have to be achieved. For example,
443: $n_{\alpha,i}^*>0$ indicates that goal is to synthesize
444: $n_{\alpha,i}^*$ molecules of the type $X_\alpha$ in the container
445: $C_i$. On the other hand, $n_{\alpha,i}^*=0$ indicates that the number of
446: particles $X_\alpha$ in the container $C_i$ is not traced. The maximum
447: number of tasks is given by $N\times M$, though not all tasks need to
448: be monitored. Also, the cases where task is achieved trivially at
449: $t=0$ are forbidden and additional restriction is set upon components
450: of ${\bm \iota}$ and ${\bm \pi}$: If task is traced one has
451: $n_{\alpha,i}^*>0$. In such case, the condition
452: $n_{\alpha,i}^*>n_{\alpha,i}^{(0)}$ must hold.
453:
454: To make a notation easier, it is convenient to eliminate the elements from
455: ${\bm\iota}$ and ${\bm\pi}$ that are zero and write
456: %
457: \begin{equation}
458: {\bm\iota} = (\iota_1,\iota_2,\ldots,\iota_\omega), \ \ \
459: {\bm\pi} = (\pi_1,\pi_2,\ldots,\pi_\eta)
460: \label{task1}
461: \end{equation}
462: %
463: where ${\bm\iota}$, and ${\bm\pi}$, only contain
464: list of molecules injected, and tasks that are actually monitored. It is clear that $\omega,\eta\le M\times N$.
465:
466: Every time a certain task is accomplished the time when this happens
467: is stored. These times are arranged in the vector
468: %
469: \begin{equation}
470: {\bm \Tau}=(\Tau_1,\Tau_2,\ldots,\Tau_\eta)
471: \label{tau}
472: \end{equation}
473: %
474: and there is a one to one correspondence between the elements of
475: $\bm\pi$ and $\bm\Tau$. Once the task is achieved molecules that were
476: used to accomplish it are removed from the system. This consideration
477: is motivated by the character of the real processes in the living
478: cell. If certain number of molecules are needed at specific place,
479: once arriving there, these molecules will be consumed by other
480: biochemical processes in the living cell.
481:
482: The vector ${\bm \Tau}$ is a stochastic variable and can be described in
483: terms of the distribution function
484: $\Phi(t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_n;\iota,\pi)$. In practise, it is very hard to
485: obtain full distribution function and it is more convenient to use
486: first two moments, the average
487: %
488: \begin{equation}
489: {\bm \tau}=(\tau_1,...,\tau_k,...,\tau_n)
490: \label{avtau}
491: \end{equation}
492: %
493: and the variance
494: %
495: \begin{equation}
496: {\bm \sigma}=(\sigma_{1,1},...,\sigma_{\alpha,i},...,\sigma_{M,N})
497: \label{sigma}
498: \end{equation}
499: %
500: In addition, one could also include moments of the type
501: $\langle\tau_i\tau_j\rangle$ $i\ne j$ but these will be not
502: considered.
503:
504: The quadruple consisting of particular reaction scheme ($\lambda$,
505: $\xi$, ${\bm \Lambda}$ and ${\bm K}$), network geometry ($l_{i,j}$
506: $i,j=1,\ldots,N$), inject pattern ${\bm \iota}$, and list of tasks
507: monitored ${\bm \pi}$, will be referred to as an {\em~organism}. The
508: organism can be seen as the entity that has to transform a certain
509: number of chemicals into a set of molecules that have to be
510: synthesized at certain places, utilizing available reaction scheme and
511: geometry. In the following sections various organisms will be
512: classified according to the criteria how fast they achieve certain
513: list of tasks (see. Eq.~\ref{avtau}). In principle, it is possible to
514: make classification with regard to how noisy performance is (see
515: Eq.~\ref{sigma}), but this type of classification is left for future
516: studies.
517:
518:
519: \section{The dynamics}
520: \label{sec:dynamics}
521:
522: The dynamics of the system defined in the previous section is stochastic
523: and from the rules discussed one can derive a master equation that
524: describes the time evolution of the occupation probabilities $p({\bm c},t)$,
525: %
526: \begin{equation}
527: \dot p({\bm c},t)=
528: \sum_{{\bm c}'}R_{{\bm c},{\bm c}'} p({\bm c}',t) -
529: \sum_{{\bm c}'}R_{{\bm c}'{\bm c}} p({\bm c},t)
530: \label{MEQ}
531: \end{equation}
532: %
533: where here and in the following dot over symbol denotes time
534: derivative. The reaction rates $R_{{\bm c}'{\bm c}}$ describing
535: transition ${\bm c}\rightarrow{\bm c}'$ can be easily calculated from
536: the definition of the model. In general, it is very hard to solve the
537: equation~(\ref{MEQ}). In here, two strategies are use to solve
538: it. First strategy is based on a simulation method. This is a straight
539: forward approach. In the second instance a set of equations is derived
540: that specifies first, second, and possibly higher moments of the
541: $\Phi(t_1,\ldots,t_n;\iota,\pi)$. Both strategies are implemented into
542: a computer program.
543:
544: \noindent{\bf Computer Simulation:} The master equation (\ref{MEQ}) is
545: solved by using minimal process algorithm suggested by
546: Gillespie~\cite{Gillespie1,Gillespie2}. Given that the system is in a
547: certain configuration, one can calculate distribution of waiting time
548: for the next process to happen. Time is updated by amount of waiting
549: $\Delta t$. Process is chosen randomly according to weight given by
550: corresponding rates for each process. For problem at hand a linear
551: selection algorithm is used.
552:
553: Given that at the time $t$ the system was in the conformation ${\bm
554: c}$ specified in (\ref{vecc}), following processes can
555: happen. Transport of particle $X_\alpha$ from $C_i$ to $C_j$ occurs with
556: rates
557: %
558: \begin{equation}
559: R^\alpha_{i,j}({\bm c}) = D^\alpha_{i,j} n_{\alpha,i} \ , \ \
560: \alpha=1,2,...,M \ , \ \ i,j=1,...,N
561: \end{equation}
562: %
563: or reactions within containers with rates
564: %
565: \begin{equation}
566: R^i_{\alpha,\beta}({\bm c})=\lambda^i_{\alpha,\beta}({\bm n}_i) n_{\alpha,i}
567: \end{equation}
568: %
569: One also needs the total reaction rate,
570: %
571: \begin{equation}
572: Q({\bm c}) =
573: \sum_{i,j=1}^N \sum_{\alpha=1}^M R^\alpha_{i,j}({\bm c}) +
574: \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^M R^i_{\alpha,\beta}({\bm c})
575: \end{equation}
576: %
577: which is used to calculate the time update $\Delta t=-\ln(1-r)/Q$
578: where $r$ is a random number drawn uniformly from the interval
579: $[0,1)$. The probabilities for process to happen are given by
580: %
581: \begin{eqnarray}
582: & & p^\alpha_{i,j}=\frac{R^\alpha_{i,j}({\bm c})}{Q} , \
583: \alpha=1,...,M , \ i,j=1,....,N \\
584: & & p^i_{\alpha,\beta}=\frac{R^i_{\alpha,\beta}({\bm c})}{Q} , \
585: i=1,...,N , \ \alpha,\beta=1,....,M
586: \end{eqnarray}
587: %
588: A process is chosen using the linear selection algorithm. First, a new
589: random number $r'$ is drawn. After that, the cumulant probabilities
590: are calculated through loop over all processes. The loop is stopped
591: when the cumulant probability exceeds $r'$ and the last process for
592: which this happened is executed.
593:
594: \noindent{\bf Moment method:} This method relies on the matrix
595: representation of the master equation (\ref{MEQ}) and can not be used
596: to treat cases with large number of containers and particle
597: types. However, the method is exact and should be used when there are
598: enough computation resources. The method is developed in the following
599: section.
600:
601: \section{The calculation of the average and standard deviation}
602: \label{sec:moment_method}
603:
604: It will be shown how to calculate moments of the individual components
605: of ${\bm \tau}$, $\gamma_k^{(p)} \equiv \langle(\tau_k)^p\rangle$,
606: $k=1,\ldots,\eta$ and $p=0,1,2,\ldots,\infty$. The more complicated
607: moments, e.g. $\gamma_{k,l}^{(p,q)} \equiv
608: \langle(\tau_k)^p(\tau_l)^q\rangle$ with $k,l=1,\ldots,\eta$ and
609: $p,q=0,1,2,\ldots,\infty$, could be also evaluated using technique
610: presented in this section, but such moments will not be considered.
611: The focus in on the moments that are obtained through
612: %
613: \begin{equation}
614: \gamma_k^{(p)}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi}) =
615: \int_0^\infty t^p\ \Gamma_k(t;{\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})\ dt
616: \label{moment0}
617: \end{equation}
618: %
619: where $\Gamma_k(t;{\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})$ denotes integrated
620: distribution function for task $\pi_k$ given by
621: %
622: \begin{equation}
623: \Gamma_k(t;{\bm\iota},{\bm\pi}) \equiv
624: \int_0^\infty
625: \Phi(t_1,\ldots,t_n;{\bm \iota},{\bm \pi})
626: \prod_{m=1,\eta}^{m\ne k} dt_m
627: \label{gamma1}
628: \end{equation}
629: %
630: Please note that accomplishment of each individual task is influenced
631: by presence of others since the particles can vanish upon
632: accomplishment of various tasks. This is the reason why integrated
633: distribution function $\Gamma_k(t;{\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})$ contains both
634: index of the task that statistics is sought for ($k$) and full list of
635: tasks being monitored (${\bm\pi}$).
636:
637: It is possible to find closed expression for Laplace transform of
638: $\Gamma_k(t;{\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})$. The Laplace transform of arbitrary
639: function $F(t)$ is defined as $F(s)\equiv \int_0^\infty {\rm
640: exp}(-st)F(t)dt$. $\Gamma_k(s;{\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})$ is given by
641: %
642: %\begin{widetext}
643: %\begin{equation}
644: \begin{eqnarray}
645: & & \Gamma_k(s;{\bm \iota},{\bm \pi}) =
646: \sum_{{\bm c}\ne{\bm\iota}} w({\bm c},\pi_k)
647: g(s;{\bm\iota},{\bm c},{\bm\pi}) \nonumber \\
648: & & + \sum_{m=1,\eta}^{m\ne k} \sum_{{\bm c}\ne{\bm \iota}}
649: w({\bm c},\pi_m)
650: g(s;{\bm\iota},{\bm c},{\bm\pi}) \nonumber \\
651: & & \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
652: \times \Gamma_k(s;{\bm c}/\pi_m,{\bm\pi}/\pi_m)
653: \label{gamma2}
654: \end{eqnarray}
655: %\end{equation}
656: %\end{widetext}
657: %
658: where notation used is as follows. The $w({\bm c},\pi_k)$ equals one
659: if task $\pi_k$ can be accomplished once system arrives in the state
660: ${\bm c}$, and equals zero otherwise. In the following, by definition,
661: a state for which one of the $w({\bm c},\pi_k)$ with $k=1,\ldots,\eta$
662: differs from zero will be referred to as a {\em window} state. Through
663: window states tasks can be accomplished. ${\bm c}/\pi_m$ denotes the
664: state immediately after the particles have been taken away once the
665: task $\pi_m$ was accomplished. Likewise, the symbol ${\bm\pi}/\pi_m$
666: denotes a list of tasks being monitored with task $\pi_m$ omitted
667: $(\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_{m-1},\pi_{m+1},\ldots,\pi_{\eta})$.
668: $g(s;{\bm\iota},{\bm c},{\bm\pi})$ is a distribution function for the
669: first passage time into the state ${\bm c}$ given that
670: the dynamics started from the state ${\bm\iota}$. Fig.~\ref{diagram2} is a
671: schematic presentation of the Eq.~(\ref{gamma2}). Please note that
672: Eq.~(\ref{gamma2}) defines $\Gamma_k(s;{\bm \iota},{\bm \pi})$
673: recursively. The number of tasks on the right hand side of
674: Eq.~(\ref{gamma2}) is by one smaller than the same number on the left
675: hand side of the equation. When list of a tasks is empty
676: ${\bm\pi}={\bm\pi}_0$ and \mbox{${\bm\pi}_0\equiv(\ )$}. Condition
677: $\Gamma_k(s;{\bm \iota},{\bm\pi}_0)=0$ stops recursion.
678:
679:
680: The Laplace transform of the first arrival time distribution function
681: $g(t;{\bm\iota},{\bm c},{\bm\pi})$ is calculated as follows. Given
682: the particular reaction scheme it is possible to construct master
683: equation (\ref{MEQ}) that governs the time dependence of the
684: occupation probabilities of each state $p({\bm c},t)$, where ${\bm c}$
685: has to be accessible from the initial state ${\bm\iota}$. When calculating
686: matrix of the transition rates ${\bm R}$ it is assumed that all
687: window-states can not be left once they are arrived into. Window
688: states are perfectly absorbing. Fig.~\ref{diagram2} is a graphic
689: representation of this fact. Once $p({\bm c},t)$ is found from
690: (\ref{MEQ}) the first passage time distribution function is given by
691: $g(t,{\bm\iota},{\bm c},{\bm\pi})=\dot p({\bm c},t)$.
692:
693: It is useful to arrange both $p({\bm c},t)$ and $g(s;{\bm\iota},{\bm
694: c},{\bm\pi})$ into a vectors ${\bm p}(t)$ and ${\bm g}(t)$ where
695: notation was simplified a bit since we assume that ${\bm\iota}$ and
696: ${\bm\pi}$ are known and fixed. It is useful to rewrite master
697: equation (\ref{MEQ}) in a matrix form as $\dot{\bm p}(t) = {\bm R p}(t)$.
698: This equation is solved using Laplace transform, with initial
699: condition $p({\bm c},0)=\delta_{{\bm c},{\bm\iota}}$
700: ($\delta$ denotes Kronecker delta symbol): $s {\bm p}(s)-{\bm p}_0
701: = {\bm Rp}(s)$. Also, in the Laplace transform space one has $s {\bm
702: p}(s)-{\bm p}_0 = {\bm g}(s)$, which directly leads to the equation for
703: the first arrival time distribution function:
704: %
705: \begin{equation}
706: s{\bm g}(s) = {\bm R}[{\bm g}(s)+{\bm p}_0]
707: \label{gs}
708: \end{equation}
709: %
710: In principle, the equation above could be solved as ${\bm
711: g}(s)=(s-{\bm R})^{-1}{\bm p}_0$. However, matrix ${\bm R}$ has zero
712: eigenvalues and the value of ${\bm g}(s)$ in the limit $s\rightarrow
713: 0$ is ill defined. To avoid such problems Eq.~(\ref{gs}) has to
714: be solved in a special way.
715:
716: It is useful to separate configuration space into three groups, as shown in
717: Fig.~\ref{diagram2}. First group, labeled $S_n$, contains states that
718: are non-window or the normal-states. Second group contains states labeled
719: by $S_t$ that we refer to as the trap states. The third group consists of
720: the window states solely, labeled by $S_w$. The existence of the trap states
721: is problem dependent. Once system arrives into these states there is
722: no exit from this space, though such states are not window
723: states. This simply means that it is possible that set of tasks is
724: never accomplished.
725:
726: Using the partition of states shown in Fig.~\ref{diagram2} leads to
727: the following set of equations
728: %
729: \begin{eqnarray}
730: & & s {\bm g}_n(s) = {\bm R}_{nn} [{\bm g}_n(s)+{\bm p}_{n,0}]
731: \label{gs1} \\
732: & & s {\bm g}_t(s) = {\bm R}_{tn} [{\bm g}_n(s)+{\bm p}_{n,0}]
733: + {\bm R}_{tt} {\bm g}_t(s)
734: \label{gs2} \\
735: & & s {\bm g}_w(s) = {\bm R}_{wn} [{\bm g}_n(s)+{\bm p}_{n,0}]
736: \label{gs3}
737: \end{eqnarray}
738: %
739: Please note that ${\bm p}_{t,0}$ and ${\bm p}_{w,0}$ are zero since,
740: initially, the system is in the state ${\bm\iota}$ and such state does
741: not have any components in the $S_t$ and $S_w$ spaces. Given that
742: there are no transition from trap states into normal states or window
743: states blocks ${\bm R}_{nt}$ and ${\bm R}_{wt}$ are missing in the
744: equations above. Likewise, blocks ${\bm R}_{ww}$, ${\bm R}_{nw}$ and
745: ${\bm R}_{tw}$ and are zero since there are no transitions among
746: window states, nor transitions from them.
747:
748: The solution of the equations (\ref{gs1})-(\ref{gs3}) can be found in a
749: straight forward manner. Equation (\ref{gs1}) can be solved first,
750: leading to ${\bm g}_n(s)=(s-{\bm R}_{nn})^{-1}{\bm p}_{n,0}$ and
751: inserting this expression into the Eq.~(\ref{gs3}) gives
752: %
753: \begin{equation}
754: g(s,{\bm \iota},{\bm c},{\bm \pi})=
755: \left[
756: {\bm R}_{wn} (s-{\bm R}_{nn})^{-1} {\bm p}_{n,0}
757: \right]_{\bm c} \ , \ \ {\bm c}\in S_w
758: \label{gw}
759: \end{equation}
760: %
761:
762: Please note that Eq.~(\ref{gw}) is well defined for all values of
763: s. In particular, in the limit $s\rightarrow 0$ even for a matrix ${\bm
764: R}$ that has zero eigenvalues. It is intuitively clear that, contrary
765: to ${\bm R}$, matrix ${\bm R}_{nn}$ does not have zero eigenvalues:
766: as time goes on, all probability accumulates in $S_w$ and $S_t$ spaces
767: (see Fig.~\ref{diagram2}). The only difficulty with Eq.~(\ref{gw}) is
768: partitioning of the full configuration space into $S_n$, $S_w$ and
769: $S_t$. The algorithm for carrying out such partitioning is not
770: presented here in order to save the space.
771:
772: Finally, once $g(s,{\bm \iota},{\bm c},{\bm \pi})$ is found one can
773: proceed with the calculation of the moments
774: $\gamma_k^{p}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})$. These can be obtained by taking
775: derivatives of Eq.~(\ref{gamma2}) with regard to $s$ and setting $s=0$
776: at the end: it can be seen easily from Eq.~(\ref{moment0}) that
777: %
778: \begin{equation}
779: \gamma_k^{p}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})=
780: (-)^p\lim_{s\rightarrow 0}\partial_s^p\Gamma_k(s,{\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})
781: \label{gamma3}
782: \end{equation}
783: %
784: where $\partial_s$ denotes derivative over $s$. Using
785: Eqs.~(\ref{gamma3}) and (\ref{gamma2}) leads to
786: %
787: %\begin{widetext}
788: %\begin{equation}
789: \begin{eqnarray}
790: & & \gamma_k^{(p)}({\bm \iota},{\bm \pi}) =
791: \sum_{{\bm c}\ne{\bm\iota}} w({\bm c},\pi_k)
792: g^{(p)}({\bm\iota},{\bm c},{\bm\pi}) \nonumber \\
793: & & + \sum_{m=1,\eta}^{m\ne k} \sum_{{\bm c}\ne{\bm \iota}}
794: w({\bm c},\pi_m)
795: \sum_{q=0,p} \left( \begin{array}{c}
796: p \\ q
797: \end{array} \right)
798: g^{(p)}({\bm\iota},{\bm c},{\bm\pi}) \nonumber \\
799: & & \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
800: \times \gamma_k^{(p-q)}({\bm c}/\pi_m,{\bm\pi}/\pi_m)
801: \label{gamma4}
802: \end{eqnarray}
803: %\end{equation}
804: %\end{widetext}
805: %
806: where by definition $g^{(p)}({\bm\iota},{\bm c},{\bm\pi})\equiv
807: (-)^p\lim_{s\rightarrow 0}\partial_s^p g(s,{\bm\iota},{\bm
808: c},{\bm\pi})$, which after using Eq.~(\ref{gw}) leads to
809: %
810: \begin{equation}
811: g^{(p)}({\bm\iota},{\bm c},{\bm\pi}) = (-)^{(p+1)}p!
812: \left[
813: {\bm R}_{wn} {\bm R}_{nn}^{-(p+1)} {\bm p}_{n,0}
814: \right]_{\bm c}
815: \label{gder}
816: \end{equation}
817: %
818:
819: Equations~(\ref{gamma4})-(\ref{gder}) are central result of this
820: section. They determine all moments. For example, once
821: $\gamma_k^{(p)}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})$ $p=0,1,2$ are found the average
822: and variance of ${\bm\Tau}$ are given by
823: %
824: \begin{eqnarray}
825: \tau_k({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi}) & = &
826: \frac{\gamma_k^{(1)}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})}
827: {\gamma_k^{(0)}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})} \\
828: \sigma_k({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})^2 & = &
829: \frac{\gamma_k^{(2)}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})}
830: {\gamma_k^{(0)}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})} -
831: \left[\frac{\gamma_k^{(1)}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})}
832: {\gamma_k^{(0)}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})}\right]^2
833: \end{eqnarray}
834: where $k=1,\ldots,\eta$. One has to divide by
835: $\gamma_k^{(0)}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})$ in the equations above in order
836: to ensure that in the case when there is a possibility that some tasks
837: are not accomplished statistics is done only for instances where task
838: was achieved. The percentage of cases when this happened is given by
839: $\gamma_k^{(0)}({\bm\iota},{\bm\pi})$. The numerical implementation of
840: Eqs.~(\ref{gamma4}) and (\ref{gder}) is a straight forward and gives
841: the {\em exact} values for ${\bm\tau}$ and~$\bm\sigma$.
842:
843:
844:
845:
846: \section{ROGE ensemble: Describing organism performance in
847: terms of the single variable $\nu$}
848: \label{sec:ROGE1}
849:
850:
851: The calculation of ${\bm\tau}$ and ${\bm\sigma}$ for an arbitrary
852: organism was discussed in the previous section. In this section the
853: GORE ensemble will be studied. The case $N=1$ where there is only one
854: container is not interesting since such space is not structured. The
855: first non-trivial example of a structured space is the case of a
856: two-container network with $N=2$. For simplicity reasons, a situation
857: will be considered where there are only two particle types A and B
858: corresponding to $M=2$. With only one particle type one can only focus
859: on transport issues. To see coupling between reactions and transport
860: one needs at least two particles types. Please note that the analysis done
861: in this section is quite generic, though it is carried out on a rather
862: simple case of $N=2$ and $M=2$. The analysis could be easily repeated for
863: an arbitrary values of $N$ and $M$. However, the computational cost
864: scales with $N$ and $M$, and there is clearly an upper limit to which
865: cases one can study. It will be shown that the relatively simple
866: two-container network and reactions with two particle types provide
867: interesting insight into the problem.
868:
869: The structure of the organisms in the ROGE ensemble is defined as follows.
870: For each organism in the ensemble an unique choice is made for (i) total
871: number of A and B molecules, (ii) reactivity matrix $\bm\Lambda$,
872: (iii) catalytic activity matrix $\bm K$, (iv) inject pattern
873: $\bm\iota$ and (v) list of tasks monitored $\bm\pi$. For all organisms
874: geometry is kept fixed (e.g. size of containers and length of the tube
875: connecting them). Please note that there are two symmetries in the
876: problem, the one that originates from relabeling of particles, and
877: another one that has to do with relabeling of containers. A special
878: care is taken to eliminate these symmetries in the ensemble. The goal
879: is to unearth best reaction scheme (organism) that draws most benefit
880: from the structured space that has the form of a two-container
881: network.
882:
883: We start with the situation where the total number of particles
884: $N_p^*=n_{A,1}+n_{A,2}+n_{B,1}+n_{B,2}$ in the system equals
885: one. Also, we consider only organisms with reactions $A\rightarrow B$
886: and $B\rightarrow A$, both with rate $\lambda$. One can see that, for
887: a given reaction scheme, and with a constraint $N_p^*=1$, only three
888: choices for $\bm\iota$ and $\bm\pi$ are possible, leading to the three
889: organisms $o_1$, $o_2$ and $o_3$ that are listed in table
890: \ref{tab:simple_examples}. Please note that all other $N_p^*=1$ cases
891: can be related to these three through relabeling of particles and
892: containers, or by considering different reaction schemes.
893:
894: All organisms are such that one A particle is injected in the
895: container $C_1$ and only one task is monitored. In the case of
896: organism $o_1$ the goal is to synthesize one A molecule in the
897: container $C_2$, in the case of $o_2$ one B molecule should be
898: synthesized in $C_1$, while in the case of $o_3$ one B molecule should
899: be created in $C_2$. Reaction process is stochastic. Average and
900: standard deviation of time for task accomplishment are given under
901: columns labeled $\tau$ and $\sigma$ in table
902: \ref{tab:simple_examples}. The dependence of $\tau$ and $\sigma$ on
903: (the inverse of) the transport rate $D$ is depicted in
904: Fig.~\ref{simple_examples}.
905:
906: Clearly, all three organisms achieve their tasks faster in the compact
907: geometries. This can be seen from Fig.~\ref{simple_examples} since
908: $\tau$ gets smaller when $D^{-1},l\rightarrow 0$. (Here, we used the
909: fact that $D^{-1}\sim l^2$ where $l$ is the length of the tube
910: connecting containers). Same holds for curves depicting
911: $\sigma$. Amount of noise decreases when geometry is compact. For
912: example, organism $o_1$ functions by transporting one A particle from
913: container $C_1$ to container $C_2$. It is intuitively clear that this
914: happens faster when containers are close. One can analyze $o_3$ in the
915: similar way. However, $o_2$ is somewhat different. In the case of
916: $o_2$ the goal is to synthesize one B molecule in the same container
917: where A was injected. Figure \ref{simple_examples} illustrates the
918: fact that when another open volume is present molecule can wonder away
919: into additional volume and this process delays synthesis of B. One can
920: also see that $o_2$ is least sensitive to increase (decrease) in $l$
921: ($D$): when $l,D^{-1}\rightarrow\infty$ the $\tau$ for $o_1$ and $o_3$
922: increases, while for $o_2$ $\tau$ saturates to constant (though level
923: of noise, $\sigma$, increases).
924:
925: The question is whether it is possible to present information conveyed
926: from Fig.~\ref{simple_examples} and table~\ref{tab:simple_examples} in
927: a more compact way? There are couple of reasons for this. First, in a
928: case of the more complicated geometry, generating graph such as shown
929: in Fig.~\ref{simple_examples} is time consuming. Second, it would be
930: desirable to have automatic procedure for assessing most important
931: properties of such graph; whether given organism performs best in
932: compact or structured (network like) geometry.
933:
934: To achieve this goal and compactify information in
935: Fig.~\ref{simple_examples} and table~\ref{tab:simple_examples} it is
936: useful to consider following quantity,
937: %
938: \begin{equation}
939: \nu = \frac{\|{\bm\tau}_n\|}{\|{\bm\tau}_0\|}
940: \end{equation}
941: %
942: where $\|.\|$ denotes Euclidean norm of the vector, ${\bm\tau}_n$ and
943: ${\bm\tau}_0$ are given by ${\bm\tau}$ calculated for network like and
944: compact geometries with jump rates $D_n$ and $D_0$ such that
945: $D_n\sim\lambda$ and $D_0\gg D_n,\lambda,\xi\lambda$. Using similar
946: reasoning the $\nu$ can be defined for generic network having more
947: than two containers. In such a way one can compare extended and
948: compact geometries of given fixed network structure and express
949: comparison through one variable~$\nu$.
950:
951: In the following the $\nu$ will be refereed to as {\em speed} of
952: a reaction. $\nu<1$ is indication that organisms accomplishes tasks
953: faster in a network like geometry, while $\nu>1$ shows that organism
954: draws most benefit from a compact geometry. Please note, all organisms
955: considered in table \ref{tab:simple_examples} and
956: Fig.~\ref{simple_examples} have $\nu>1$.
957:
958: In principle, one could define quantity similar to $\nu$
959: and use $\sigma$ instead of $\tau$. For example, one could use
960: %
961: \begin{equation}
962: \mu = \frac{\|{\bm\sigma}_n\|}{\|{\bm\sigma}_0\|}
963: \end{equation}
964: %
965: where meanings of ${\bm\sigma}_n$ and ${\bm\sigma}_0$ are similar to
966: the ones of ${\bm\tau}_n$ and ${\bm\tau}_0$. $\mu$ could be used to
967: classify organisms in the ensemble according to the amount of noise in
968: compact and extended (network-like) geometries. Also, it is possible
969: to use $\rho=\sqrt{\nu^2+\mu^2}$ as simultaneous measure of speed and
970: noise. But such quantities will not be studied at the moment. From now
971: on we focus on $\nu$ solely.
972:
973:
974: \section{ROGE ensemble: Classification of the reaction
975: schemes using the speed of reaction $\nu$}
976: \label{sec:ROGE2}
977:
978: Figure \ref{histogram} depicts results of the classification of large
979: number of organisms in five ROGE ensembles where $\nu$ (defined in
980: previous section) is used as a measure of the performance. Five ROGE
981: ensembles are constructed with the increasing upper limit for the
982: total number of particles in the system $N_p^*$ from $1$ to $5$.
983:
984: For $N_p^*=1$ there are 95 unique organisms. Clearly, this number is
985: overestimate. The number of unique organisms is obtained after
986: eliminating symmetries related to relabeling of particles and
987: containers removed. However, this number is still too large since
988: catalytic influences are assumed to play the role, though there can
989: not be any catalytic influence when there is constantly one molecule
990: in the system. The number of unique organisms for other cases
991: discussed later with $N_p^*=2,3,4,5$ is correct. There are no
992: organisms in the $N_p^*=1$ class that benefit from the structured
993: geometry since the histogram in the panel (b) is empty. All organisms
994: have $\nu>1$ as can be seen from panel (a).
995:
996: For $N_p^*=2$ there are 730 organisms that are unique. Only after more
997: than one molecule appears in the system, catalytic influences start to
998: play the role, and organisms that benefit from the network like structure
999: appear [see panels (c) and (d) in Fig.~\ref{histogram}]. The best
1000: performer in this class is given in Table~\ref{tab:best}, denoted by
1001: $o_{i,2}$, together with couple of a second best performers denoted by
1002: $o_{ii,2}$. The two organisms labeled $o_{i,2}$ draw most benefit from
1003: the network like structure and degeneracy in $\nu$ comes from the fact
1004: that same enhancement and reduction factor is used for positive and
1005: negative catalytic influence respectively.
1006:
1007: One can understand intuitively why $o_{i,2}$ runs faster in the
1008: network like geometry. We focus on the particular case of $o_{i,2}$
1009: where goal is to synthesize two B molecules in the container
1010: $C_1$. Due to the initial presence of molecule A in the container
1011: $C_1$, it is very likely that B molecule will be converted into A
1012: molecule, when A and B meet in the same container. Once there are two
1013: A molecules in the system the trouble starts. Even if the reaction
1014: $A\rightarrow B$ happens, and chance for this is really small due to
1015: the negative catalytic influence of A on such reaction, B will be
1016: converted back to A immediately (due to the positive catalytic
1017: influence of another A molecule on the $B\rightarrow A$ reaction). In
1018: principle, conversion of AB into 2B has no chance occurring in a
1019: reasonable time when there is only one container. The antagonistic
1020: catalytic influences just discussed are best handled in a network like
1021: geometry. In such a case the synthesis of the molecules can be done in
1022: a separate containers. With two containers there is always a chance
1023: that antagonistic influences will be reduced. For example, in the case
1024: there are two A molecules in the system, the processes $A\rightarrow
1025: B$ can happen fast given that damage inflicting A molecule is in
1026: another container.
1027:
1028: Also, it is naive to think that organisms containing reactions with
1029: solely negative catalytic influence perform best in a network like
1030: structure. This is clearly not the case. The winning organisms
1031: $o_{i,2}$ are constructed from one reaction with positive
1032: $B\stackrel{+A}{\longrightarrow}A$ and another reaction
1033: $A\stackrel{-A}{\longrightarrow}B$ with negative catalytic influence.
1034: Furthermore, Fig.~\ref{histogram} shows plenty of other cases.
1035: Actually, the completely opposite is possible. There are many
1036: organisms in the histogram plot with $\nu>1$ that contain at least one
1037: reaction with negative catalytic influence and these organisms perform
1038: best in a compact geometry.
1039:
1040: With $N_p^*=3$ there are 3025 organisms that are unique. The best
1041: performer in this class is given in Table~\ref{tab:best}, denoted by
1042: $o_{i,3}$. A couple of the second best performers are also shown and
1043: labeled $o_{ii,3}$. When more than two molecules appear in the system,
1044: completely new organism appears as winner. There is a sharp transition
1045: in character of winners. Both the reaction type and inject and task
1046: patterns are different in $o_{i,3}$ and $o_{i,2}$. The reaction
1047: of organisms $o_{3,i}$ is such that it is possible that tasks are not
1048: accomplished. For example, all A molecules can be converted to B
1049: before task [2A]-\cz\ in $C_1$ is accomplished. Once this happens
1050: synthesis of A's in $C_1$ will never occur since back reaction
1051: $B\rightarrow A$ is absent.
1052:
1053: Very likely, from biological point of view there is no advantage
1054: basing survival on a reaction that sometimes fails, i.e. using
1055: reaction similar to the one contained in $o_{i,3}$. Nevertheless,
1056: there might be constraints that could enforce presence of such
1057: reaction. For example, the number of molecules in Nature is large but
1058: limited. Living organisms have to use what is available. In the lack
1059: of alternatives it might be necessary for the intra cellular machinery
1060: to use reaction that sometimes fails. But leaving such discussions
1061: aside, the only point emphasized here is that organism $o_{i,3}$ draws
1062: most benefit from the network like structure.
1063:
1064: Interestingly, this type of organism remains winner in the classes
1065: $N_p^*=4$ and $N_p^*=5$ with $\nu=0.0248$ and $\nu=0.0192$, see
1066: table~\ref{tab:best}, organisms $o_{i,4}$ and $o_{i,5}$. However,
1067: please note that details of the inject pattern of $o_{i,4}$ and
1068: $o_{i,5}$ are somewhat different from $o_{i,3}$. Judging solely from
1069: $o_{i,3}$ and $o_{i,4}$ one would guess that inject patter for best
1070: performer in class $N_p^*=5$ should be ${\bm\iota}=$[A]$-$[4A], in
1071: class $N_p^*=6$ ${\bm\iota}=$[A]$-$[5A], etc. However, this is not the
1072: case. The best performer in class $N_p^*=5$ has inject pattern equal to
1073: ${\bm\iota}=$[2A]$-$[3A] with $\nu=0.0192$, while organism with
1074: ${\bm\iota}=$[A]$-$[4A], denoted by $o_{ii,2}$, has somewhat larger
1075: $\nu=0.0219$.
1076:
1077: Thus, examples above show how difficult it is to have any intuition
1078: about structure of best performers. There are also other ways to see
1079: this. For example, the last row in table~\ref{tab:best} contains
1080: organisms with slightly modified inject or task patterns where
1081: original form is taken from best performer. Comparing $o_{i,3}$ and
1082: $o_{*,3}$, $o_{i,4}$ and $o_{*,4}$, and finally $o_{i,5}$ with
1083: $o_{*,5}$ shows that small alternation in task pattern, obtained by
1084: moving one B particles from $C_2$ into $C_1$, lowers performance
1085: considerably. Organisms with such alternations do not perform well in
1086: the network like geometry: each of $o_{*,3}$, $o_{*,4}$ and $o_{*,5}$
1087: has $\nu>1$. Another example, can be obtained from comparison of
1088: $o_{i,3}$ with $o_{*,2}$. Both inject and task patterns have been
1089: altered in $o_{i,3}$. This change is motivated by sequence of
1090: organisms in first row of table~\ref{tab:best}, when read from right
1091: to left. A priori, the organism $o_{*,2}$ could be considered to have
1092: $\nu<1$, however this is not the case. The actual value for $\nu=418$
1093: is (lot) larger than one.
1094:
1095: In summary, the table~\ref{tab:best} shows a couple of interesting
1096: features. First, one can see that when maximum allowed number of
1097: particles in the system increases new effects appear. It is impossible
1098: to predict winner in each class before calculation is done. Second,
1099: there is also a large sensitivity on inject and task patterns. Slight
1100: alternation of these patterns can lead to drastic changes in
1101: performance criteria $\nu$.
1102:
1103:
1104: \section{Discussion}
1105: \label{sec:discussion}
1106:
1107:
1108: We introduced what we might call a generic model for study of chemical
1109: reactions in structured spaces, based on a simple way of incorporating
1110: interplay between transport, chemical reactions, and geometry. A
1111: number of different chemical reactions were studied and their
1112: performance compared in various ways. The main idea is to see how the
1113: reaction processes behave when geometry changes from compact open
1114: space towards the cell like environment that is more structured. In
1115: order to be able to analyze large number of reactions, relatively
1116: simple model was used in order to reduce computational
1117: time. Following simplifications were made.
1118:
1119: As a model of structured space we used a network consisting of
1120: containers connected by tubes. Such setup captures the most important
1121: geometrical aspects of the problem. There are compact regions in space
1122: that reactants can explore and react within. These regions are
1123: connected to each other and exchange chemicals. In such a way the
1124: two most important processes are clearly separated, the local dynamics
1125: within container, and the transport among containers. This is pretty much
1126: how living cell operates. In such a way one can capture most important
1127: geometrical aspects of the cell interior.
1128:
1129: The reaction scheme considered is rather crude. Dynamics
1130: within container, however complicated it may be, is projected onto a
1131: relatively low number of degrees of freedom, the number of particles
1132: in each container. The reaction rate $\lambda$ describes how fast
1133: reactions happen. The description in terms of number of particles
1134: becomes more and more valid when size of the reaction volume is
1135: reduced and number of reactants few~\cite{McQuarrie1,Clifford1}. It
1136: is exactly this limit that we focussed on.
1137:
1138: The transport between containers was modeled in simplest possible way
1139: by using the effective transport rate $D$. It was assumed that
1140: transport rate is same for any pair of containers, and type of
1141: particles. This assumption could be easily relaxed. Clearly, when
1142: tubes are long, the number of particles in each container decays
1143: non-exponentially and the transport process can not be described by
1144: using a transport rate. But such effects are not considered here.
1145:
1146: Thus, only two parameters are used to describe dynamics, the reaction
1147: rate $\lambda$ and transport rate $D$. There are several advantages in
1148: doing so, but the most important one is that reactions and transport
1149: are clearly separated, and it is easier to understand how they
1150: influence each other. Despite apparent simplicity, the model studied
1151: in here captures all essential features of the problem. Should there
1152: be need for that one can make the model more realistic, but we refrain
1153: from this at the moment.
1154:
1155: Which types of chemical reactions draw most benefit from structured
1156: spaces? In an attempt to answer this question two schemes were
1157: formulated. In ROGE scheme one explores variety of chemical reactions
1158: while spatial structure (geometry) is kept fixed. It is the other way around
1159: for GORE scheme. At the moment ROGE scheme is studied in a lot more
1160: detail. The study of GORE ensemble will be left for the future work. The
1161: main findings of this work are discussed bellow.
1162:
1163: Since dynamics is stochastic one needs probabilistic description of
1164: the system, and in order to perform analysis of any chemical reaction
1165: one has to solve corresponding master equation that describes
1166: statistics of events. Two techniques for doing this were used. First,
1167: the computer simulation is a straight forward way to analyze master
1168: equation (discussed in section~\ref{sec:dynamics}). This technique
1169: is not that accurate due to the stochastic spread of data. One needs
1170: unrealistically large number of runs in order to gain reasonable
1171: accuracy in $\nu$. In here, a novel method of analyzing chemical
1172: reaction was developed, with emphasis on the first passage time (see
1173: section~\ref{sec:moment_method}). This method relies on a matrix
1174: representation of the master equation. In principle, it is exact up to
1175: the numerical errors in carrying out matrix manipulations, such as
1176: finding inverses, multiplying matrix with vector etc. In here we
1177: developed a equation that describes first passage time distribution
1178: function for achieving set of tasks. From this equation one can easily
1179: obtain all moments of distribution function and calculate average
1180: execution time for reaction and its variance.
1181:
1182: It is not so easy to compare two vastly different chemical reactions.
1183: A method for doing this was discussed in
1184: section~\ref{sec:ROGE1}. There are some obvious difficulties when
1185: doing comparison. For example, one might need to compare a situation
1186: where number of molecular types involved in reactions are completely
1187: different. Also, spatial structures need not be the same, e.g. there
1188: might be a need to compare two vastly different network structures. In
1189: order to overcome these difficulties one has to use a measure of
1190: relative performance. For example, in the case of a ROGE ensemble the
1191: execution time for given reaction was compared when geometry is
1192: stretched (transport occurs with rate $D_n\sim\lambda$) and compact
1193: (transport with rate $D_0$ where $D_0\gg D_n,\lambda,\xi\lambda$). The
1194: ratio $\nu$ of the magnitude of the execution times ${\bm\tau}_n$ and
1195: ${\bm\tau}_0$ for stretched (network) and compact geometry is a rough
1196: estimate of how well reaction performs in a network like
1197: geometry. Instead of comparing organisms directly one compares values
1198: $\nu=\|{\bm\tau}_n\|/\|{\bm\tau}_0\|$.
1199:
1200: Thus, the single variable $\nu$ is sufficient to determine whether a
1201: reaction (organism) runs best on the network like ($\nu<1$) or the
1202: compact geometry ($\nu>1$). The variable $\nu$ was used to classify
1203: performance of various organisms in the geometry consisting of two
1204: containers connected by tube, with main findings summarized in
1205: Fig.~\ref{histogram} and Table~\ref{tab:best}.
1206:
1207: (1) It is obvious that intuition does not help much. One really has
1208: to do numerical analysis in order to extract best performer in a given
1209: class. For example, the character of best performer changes quite a
1210: bit when number of particles in the system varies. The structure of
1211: the winning organism in the first row of table changes in a rather
1212: unpredictable manner as upper limit to the total number of particles
1213: in the system increases from 2 to 5. Also, the performance is
1214: extremely sensitive to the details of inject and task patterns. It is
1215: interesting to speculate whether such sensitivity on total particle
1216: number, inject and task patterns is exploited in the intra cellular
1217: machinery. We developed a quantitative method to judge on such
1218: effects.
1219:
1220: (2) The role of reactions with positive and negative catalytic
1221: influence is symmetric. Roughly, they occur equally often in the
1222: organisms that perform well in network like geometries with
1223: $\nu<1$. Interestingly enough, same holds for opposite range with
1224: $\nu>1$. From Fig.~\ref{histogram} one can see that positive and
1225: negative areas are roughly equal in magnitude, both in the $\nu<1$ and
1226: $\nu>1$ regions. Thus, there are reactions of the suppressor type that
1227: run better in compact geometries, and the other way around. There are
1228: also reactions with solely positive catalytic influence that run
1229: faster in network like geometry. But these findings are the not the
1230: only ones that are counterintuitive. It is also surprising that in the
1231: region $\nu\approx 0$ reactions with solely positive catalytic
1232: influence dominate.
1233:
1234: (3) Reaction schemes containing antagonistic catalytic influences in
1235: the intermediate stages of reaction, that slow down the production of
1236: the final product, require network like geometry to run fast. The
1237: antagonistic sub-reactions have to isolated and allowed to occur in
1238: separate regions of space. There are two mechanisms that work against
1239: each other. First, the reaction time gets larger since one needs to
1240: transport reactants to the regions where damage inflicting
1241: sub-reactions must be run in isolation. Second, after being isolated,
1242: dangerous sub-reactions happen much faster than when all reactants are
1243: mixed and this shortens reaction time. It is interesting to note that
1244: there are large number of cases where isolating misbehaving
1245: sub-reactions pays off in faster reaction time.
1246:
1247: (4) In general, antagonistic catalytic influences are hard to
1248: identify. It is hard to judge reaction by itself. The whole triple
1249: consisting of reaction, inject pattern, and task pattern has to
1250: be considered simultaneously.
1251:
1252: In summary, we studied the workings of a chemical reactions in a two
1253: vastly different spaces. In the compact conformation, molecules can
1254: reach any part of the space very fast. The transport rate is lot
1255: larger than any reaction rate in the system. In the network like
1256: conformation, various volumes are well separated and the transport of
1257: reactants between volumes occurs relatively slowly. It was found that
1258: considerable number of reactions work better in a network like
1259: configuration when transport rate gets smaller. The setup suggested
1260: in here is generic. There are many possible ways of extending present
1261: analysis. For example, at present focus is on small number of
1262: particles and stochastic dynamics. One could easily consider situation
1263: where number of particles is larger and classical chemical kinetics
1264: applies in the container. Transport between containers can be treated
1265: in a better way. Instead of focusing on the average execution time
1266: $\bm\tau$ one can easily look at noise $\bm\sigma$ or combination of
1267: the two. The GORE ensemble should be explored in a lot more
1268: detail. These issues will be addressed in the future work.
1269:
1270:
1271:
1272: \begin{acknowledgments}
1273: I would like to thank Prof. Owe Orwar and members of his group for
1274: fruitful discussions that provided motivation for this work and for
1275: warm hospitality during the S\"ar\"o meeting 2005. The financial
1276: support of Prof. Owe Orwar is greatly acknowledged.
1277: \end{acknowledgments}
1278:
1279:
1280: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure captions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1281:
1282: \begin{figure}
1283: \psfrag{AA}{(a)}
1284: \psfrag{BB}{(b)}
1285: \psfrag{CC}{(c)}
1286: \psfrag{C1}{$C_1$}
1287: \psfrag{C2}{$C_2$}
1288: \psfrag{C3}{$C_3$}
1289: \psfrag{C4}{$C_4$}
1290: \psfrag{C5}{$C_5$}
1291: \psfrag{L15}{$l_{15}$}
1292: \psfrag{L25}{$l_{25}$}
1293: \psfrag{L35}{$l_{35}$}
1294: \psfrag{L45}{$l_{45}$}
1295: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1296: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{network.eps}
1297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1298: \caption{ A guidance how to think about the problem. Panel (a):
1299: non-structured (compact) space. Panel (b): structured space obtained
1300: by deforming geometry depicted in panel (a). The goal is to
1301: understand how reaction dynamics alters when geometry changes from (a)
1302: to (b). The panel (c), representing a network of containers and
1303: tubes, is used to achieve this goal. For example, to capture the most
1304: important geometrical features of the structure in panel (b) one needs
1305: five containers $C_1,\ldots,C_5$ and four tubes with lengths $l_{15}$,
1306: $l_{25}$, $l_{35}$ and $l_{45}$. The two parameters are used to define
1307: the dynamics in the network (c). The intra-container reaction rate
1308: $\lambda$, and inter-container transport rate $D$ (provided containers
1309: are connected). When $D\sim\lambda$ the reaction dynamics in panels (b)
1310: and (c) should exhibit some similarities. For $D\gg\lambda$ one
1311: expects the same for the structures (a) and (c).}
1312: \label{network}
1313: \end{figure}
1314:
1315: \begin{figure}
1316: \psfrag{X1}{$X_1$}
1317: \psfrag{X2}{$X_2$}
1318: \psfrag{Xomega}{$X_\omega$}
1319: \psfrag{Xp1}{$X_1'$}
1320: \psfrag{Xp2}{$X_2'$}
1321: \psfrag{Xpeta}{$X_\eta'$}
1322: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1323: %\epsfxsize=8cm
1324: %\epsfbox{diagram.eps}
1325: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{diagram1.eps}
1326: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1327: \caption{The most general form of a reaction graph considered.
1328: Species $X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_\omega$ describe an {\em inject}
1329: pattern, a set of the molecules that are inserted into the system at
1330: $t=0$. This set is arranged into the vector $\bm\iota$. Molecules
1331: denoted by $X'_1,X_2',\ldots,X_\eta'$ are the ones that have to be
1332: synthesized and are arranged into the vector $\bm\pi$. These are
1333: referred to as a {\em task} pattern. The shaded area in the middle
1334: denotes intermediate reaction steps. Dashed lines with arrows are
1335: allowed and result in appearance of loops in the reaction scheme. The
1336: speed of reaction is calculated by tracking instances when particles
1337: in the set $\bm\pi$ appear for the first time. The corresponding times
1338: $\Tau_1,\Tau_2,\ldots,\Tau_\eta$ are arranged into the vector
1339: ${\bm\Tau}$. See section \ref{sec:model} for more details.}
1340: \label{diagram1}
1341: \end{figure}
1342:
1343: \begin{figure}
1344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1345: %\epsfxsize=8cm
1346: %\epsfbox{XXX.eps}
1347: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{diagram2.eps}
1348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1349: \caption{The structure of the configuration space. Initially the
1350: system is in the state ${\bm\iota}$. Three set of states are
1351: distinguished, a set of normal states $S_n$, a set of trap states
1352: $S_t$, and a set of window states $S_w$. See text for discussion.}
1353: \label{diagram2}
1354: \end{figure}
1355:
1356: \begin{figure}
1357: \psfrag{bartau}{$\tau$}
1358: \psfrag{sigma}{$\sigma$}
1359: \psfrag{invD}{$D^{-1}$}
1360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1361: %\epsfxsize=8cm
1362: %\epsfbox{histogram.eps}
1363: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{simple_examples.eps}
1364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1365: \caption{The dependence of $\tau$ and $\sigma$ on $D^{-1}\sim\sqrt{l}$
1366: for three organisms defined in table \ref{tab:simple_examples} ($l$ is
1367: the length of a tube connecting containers). Curves describe $o_1$
1368: (dotted line), $o_2$ (dashed) and $o_3$ (solid). See table
1369: \ref{tab:simple_examples} and section \ref{sec:ROGE1} for more
1370: details.}
1371: \label{simple_examples}
1372: \end{figure}
1373:
1374:
1375: \begin{figure}
1376: \psfrag{noo}[][]{\small{\#o}}
1377: \psfrag{ npmax1}{\small{$N_p^*=1$}}
1378: \psfrag{ npmax2}{\small{$N_p^*=2$}}
1379: \psfrag{ npmax3}{\small{$N_p^*=3$}}
1380: \psfrag{ npmax4}{\small{$N_p^*=4$}}
1381: \psfrag{ npmax5}{\small{$N_p^*=5$}}
1382: \psfrag{t.t0}{\small{$\frac{\tau_n}{\tau_0}$}}
1383: \psfrag{t0.t}[][]{\small{$\chi\left(\frac{\tau_0}{\tau_n}\right)$}}
1384: \psfrag{A}{(a)}
1385: \psfrag{B}{(b)}
1386: \psfrag{C}{(c)}
1387: \psfrag{D}{(d)}
1388: \psfrag{E}{(e)}
1389: \psfrag{F}{(f)}
1390: \psfrag{G}{(g)}
1391: \psfrag{H}{(h)}
1392: \psfrag{I}{(i)}
1393: \psfrag{J}{(j)}
1394: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1395: %\epsfxsize=8cm
1396: %\epsfbox{histogram.eps}
1397: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{histogram.eps}
1398: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1399: \caption{Classification of organisms in ROGE ensemble. $\nu$ was
1400: calculated with $D_n=1s^{-1}$, $D_0=3125s^{-1}$, $\lambda=1s^{-1}$,
1401: and $\xi=100$. Panels (a), (c), (e), (g) and (i) are histograms that
1402: depicts groups with similar reaction speed $\nu$. There are 100
1403: classes of width $0.01$ for $\nu$ from $1$ to $2$. For $\nu>1$,
1404: instead of $\nu$, the value obtained from $\chi(\nu)=2-\ln
1405: 2/\ln(1+\nu)$ is used. The function $\chi$ monotonically grows with
1406: $\nu$ and maps infinite interval $[1,\infty)$ onto the finite one
1407: $[1,2)$. In addition, this particular form for $\chi$ reveals more
1408: details in the region near $\nu=1$. Panels (b), (d), (f), (h), and (j)
1409: are discrete spectra (no histogram) for region $\nu\in[0,1]$. Panels
1410: in the same row have same value for the total number of particles in
1411: the system $N_p^*$: (a) and (b) $N_p^*=1$, (c) and (d) $N_p^*=2$, (e)
1412: and (f) $N_p^*=3$, (g) and (h) $N_p^*=4$, (i) and (j)
1413: $N_p^*=5$. Negative value for number of organisms ($\#o$) indicates
1414: that organism with particular value of $\nu$ contains at least one
1415: reaction that can be influenced through mechanism of
1416: suppression. Presence of suppressor lowers the reaction rate from
1417: $\lambda$ to $\lambda/\xi$ (see section~\ref{sec:model} for details).}
1418: \label{histogram}
1419: \end{figure}
1420:
1421: \begin{table}
1422: \begin{samepage}
1423: \caption{\label{tab:simple_examples} Analysis of a three cases where
1424: the total number of particles equals one and the number of containers
1425: equals two. These are simplest cases that one can consider with regard
1426: to the choices of $\bm\iota$ and $\bm\pi$. A reaction scheme used is
1427: $A\rightarrow B$ and $B\rightarrow A$, both with rate $\lambda$
1428: (effects of catalyst or suppressor are absent since there is only one
1429: particle in the system at a time). The jump rate between containers is
1430: given by $D$. In the definition of $\bm\iota$ and $\bm\pi$ the
1431: content of containers is symbolically indicated as
1432: \mbox{[content~of~$C_1$]-[content~of~$C_2$]}.}
1433: \begin{ruledtabular}
1434: \begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc}
1435: %\hline
1436: org. & $\bm\iota$ & $\bm\pi$ & $\tau$ & $\sigma^2$ \\
1437: \hline
1438: $o_1$ & [A]-[\ ] & [\ ]-[A] \ \
1439: & $\frac{2\,D+\lambda}{D\,\left(D+\lambda\right)}$
1440: & $\frac{2\,D^3+5\,D^2\,\lambda+3\,D\,{\lambda}^2+{\lambda}^3}
1441: {D^2\,\lambda\,{\left(D+\lambda \right)}^2}$ \\
1442: $o_2$ & [A]-[\ ] & [B]-[\ ] \ \
1443: & $\frac{D + 2\,\lambda }{\lambda \,\left( D + \lambda \right) }$
1444: & $\frac{D^3 + 3\,D^2\,\lambda + 5\,D\,{\lambda }^2 + 2\,{\lambda }^3}
1445: {D\,{\lambda }^2\,{\left( D + \lambda \right) }^2}$ \\
1446: $o_3$ & [A]-[\ ] & [\ ]-[B] \ \
1447: & $\frac{1}{D}+\frac{1}{\lambda}$
1448: & $\frac{1}{D^2}+\frac{1}{D\lambda}+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}$ \\
1449: \end{tabular}
1450: \end{ruledtabular}
1451: \end{samepage}
1452: \end{table}
1453:
1454: \begin{table*}
1455: \caption{\label{tab:best} List of the best performers in the ROGE
1456: ensemble (first row). Couple of second best performers are also shown
1457: (second row). Last row contains organisms that are obtained by
1458: slightly perturbing winners from the first row.}
1459: \begin{ruledtabular}
1460: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
1461: $N_p^*=2$ & $N_p^*=3$ & $N_p^*=4$ & $N_p^*=5$ \\
1462: \hline
1463: \begin{tabular}{c}
1464: ( $o_{i,2}$ ) \\
1465: $A\stackrel{-A}{\longrightarrow}B$, $B\stackrel{+A}{\longrightarrow}A$
1466: ($R_1$) \\
1467: $\bm\iota=$[A]-[B] \\
1468: $\bm\pi=$[2B]-\cz\ or \cz-[2B] \\
1469: $\bm\tau_n=$[18.55]-\cz \\
1470: $\bm\tau_0=$[50.91]-\cz \\
1471: $\nu=0.364$
1472: \end{tabular} &
1473: \begin{tabular}{c}
1474: ( $o_{i,3}$ ) \\
1475: $A\stackrel{+A}{\longrightarrow} B$ ($R_3$)\\
1476: $\bm\iota$=[A]-[2A] \\
1477: $\bm\pi$=[2A]-[B] \\
1478: $\bm\tau_n$=[0.242]-[0.0355] \\
1479: $\bm\tau_0$=[0.000219]-[0.979] \\
1480: $\nu$=0.250
1481: \end{tabular} &
1482: \begin{tabular}{c}
1483: ( $o_{i,4}$ ) \\
1484: $A\stackrel{+A}{\longrightarrow} B$ ($R_3$) \\
1485: $\bm\iota=$[A]-[3A] \\
1486: $\bm\pi=$[3A]-[B] \\
1487: $\bm\tau_n=$[$0.021$]-[$0.01$] \\
1488: $\bm\tau_0=$[$0.00045$]-[$0.95$] \\
1489: $\nu=0.0248$
1490: \end{tabular} &
1491: \begin{tabular}{c}
1492: ( $o_{i,5}$ ) \\
1493: $A\stackrel{+A}{\longrightarrow} B$ ($R_3$) \\
1494: $\bm\iota=$[2A]-[3A] \\
1495: $\bm\pi=$[4A]-[B] \\
1496: $\bm\tau_n=$[0.014]-[0.00063] \\
1497: $\bm\tau_0=$[0.010]-[0.91] \\
1498: $\nu=0.0192$
1499: \end{tabular} \\
1500: \hline
1501: \begin{tabular}{c}
1502: ( $o_{ii,2}$ ) \\
1503: $A\stackrel{-B}{\longrightarrow} B$,
1504: $B\stackrel{+A}{\longrightarrow} A$ ($R_2$) \\
1505: $\bm\iota=$[A]-[B],
1506: $\bm\pi=$[2B]-\cz\ \\
1507: or \cz-[2B], $\nu=0.368$ \\
1508: $R_1$,
1509: $\bm\iota=$\cz-[2A], \\
1510: $\bm\pi=$[2B]-\cz,
1511: $\nu=0.386$ \\
1512: $R_3$,
1513: $\bm\iota=$\cz-[2A], \\
1514: $\bm\pi=$[A]-[B],
1515: $\nu=0.500$
1516: \end{tabular} &
1517: \begin{tabular}{c}
1518: ( $o_{ii,3}$ ) \\
1519: $R_3$,
1520: $\bm\iota$=\cz-[3A] \\
1521: $\bm\pi$=[2A]-[B],
1522: $\nu=0.268$ ; \\
1523: %
1524: $R_1$,
1525: $\bm\iota$=[2A]-[B] \\
1526: $\bm\pi$=[A]-[2B] \\
1527: %
1528: $R_2$,
1529: $\bm\iota$=[2A]-[B] \\
1530: $\bm\pi$=[2B]-[A]\ or \cz-[A,2B] \\
1531: $\nu\approx 0.386$
1532: \end{tabular} &
1533: \begin{tabular}{c}
1534: ( $o_{ii,4}$ ) \\
1535: $R_3$,
1536: $\bm\iota$=[2A]-[2A] \\
1537: $\bm\pi$=[3A]-[B],
1538: $\nu$ =$0.0279$; \\
1539: $R_3$,
1540: $\bm\iota$=\cz-[4A] \\
1541: $\bm\pi$=[3A]-[B],
1542: $\nu$=$0.0358$
1543: \end{tabular} &
1544: \begin{tabular}{c}
1545: ( $o_{ii,5}$ ) \\
1546: $R_3$,
1547: $\bm\iota$=[2A]-[3A] \\
1548: $\bm\pi$=[4A,B]-\cz,
1549: $\nu$=0.0219; \\
1550: $R_3$,
1551: $\bm\iota$=[A]-[4A] \\
1552: $\bm\pi$=[4A]-[B],
1553: $\nu$=0.0305
1554: \end{tabular} \\
1555: \hline
1556: \begin{tabular}{c}
1557: ( $o_{*,2}$ ) \\
1558: $R_1$\ or $R_3$,
1559: $\bm\iota=$\cz-[2A] \\
1560: $\bm\pi=$[2A]-\cz,
1561: $\nu=$3249 or 418; \\
1562: %
1563: %$R_1$\ or $R_2$,
1564: %$\bm\iota=$[2A]-\cz, \\
1565: %$\bm\pi=$[2B]-\cz\ or \cz-[2B] ; \\
1566: %
1567: %$R_1$\ or $R_2$,
1568: %$\bm\iota=$[AB]-\cz, \\
1569: %$\bm\pi=$[2B]-\cz\ or \cz-[2B] ; \\
1570: %
1571: %$0.377\le\nu\le 0.396$
1572: \end{tabular} &
1573: \begin{tabular}{c}
1574: ( $o_{*,3}$ ) \\
1575: $R_3$,
1576: $\bm\iota=$[A]-[2A] \\
1577: $\bm\pi=$[3A]-\cz,
1578: $\nu=21.8$
1579: \end{tabular} &
1580: \begin{tabular}{c}
1581: ( $o_{*,4}$ ) \\
1582: $R_3$,
1583: $\bm\iota=$[A]-[3A] \\
1584: $\bm\pi=$[4A]-\cz,
1585: $\nu=17.5$
1586: \end{tabular} &
1587: \begin{tabular}{c}
1588: ( $o_{*,5}$ ) \\
1589: $R_3$,
1590: $\bm\iota=$[2A]-[3A] \\
1591: $\bm\pi=$[5A]-\cz,
1592: $\nu=10.4$
1593: \end{tabular}
1594: \end{tabular}
1595: \end{ruledtabular}
1596: \end{table*}
1597:
1598: %%%%%%%% References %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1599:
1600: %\bibliography{refs}
1601:
1602: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1603:
1604: \bibitem{Nelsestuen}
1605: G.L. Nelsestuen, Chemistry and Physics of Lipids {\bf 101}, 37 (1999).
1606:
1607: \bibitem{Kuthan}
1608: H. Kuthan, Progress in Biophysics \& Molecular Biology {\bf 75}, 1 (2001).
1609:
1610: \bibitem{Ganti}
1611: T. Ganti, BioSystems {\bf 7}, 15-21 (1975).
1612:
1613: \bibitem{SSFA}
1614: M.L. Simpson,G.S. Sayler, J.T. Fleming and B. Applegate, Trends in
1615: Biotechnology {\bf 19}(8), 317 (2001).
1616:
1617: \bibitem{MH}
1618: A. Mikhailov and B. Hess, J. Phys. Chem. {\bf 100}, 19059 (1996).
1619:
1620: \bibitem{SMH1}
1621: P. Stange, A.S. Mikhailov and B. Hess, J. Phys. Chem. B {\bf 102}, 6273 (1998).
1622:
1623: \bibitem{SMH2}
1624: P. Stange, A.S. Mikhailov and B. Hess, J. Phys. Chem. B {\bf 103}, 6111 (1999).
1625:
1626: \bibitem{SZMH}
1627: P. Stange, D. Zanette, A.S. Mikhailov and B. Hess, Biophysical Chemistry {\bf
1628: 79}, 233 (1999).
1629:
1630: \bibitem{SMH3}
1631: P. Stange, A.S. Mikhailov and B. Hess, J. Phys. Chem. B {\bf 104}, 1844 (2000).
1632:
1633: \bibitem{WQL}
1634: H. Wang, Q. Quyang and Y. Lei, J. Phys. Chem. B {\bf 105}, 7099 (2001).
1635:
1636: \bibitem{SQ}
1637: K. Sun and Q. Quyang, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 64}, 026111 (2001).
1638:
1639: \bibitem{QQ}
1640: H. Qian and M. Qian Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}(10), 2271 (2000).
1641:
1642: \bibitem{Calvin}
1643: M. Calvin, {\em Chemical Evolution: Molecular evolution towards the origin of
1644: living systems on the earth and elsewhere}, (Claredon Press, Oxford, 1969).
1645:
1646: \bibitem{Volkenstein}
1647: M.V. Volkenstein, {\em Physical Approaches to Biological Evolution},
1648: (Springer-Verlag, 1994).
1649:
1650: \bibitem{Langton}
1651: C. Langton, Physica D {\bf 22}, 120-149 (1986).
1652:
1653: \bibitem{Furusawa}
1654: C. Furusawa and K. Kaneko, Artificial Life {\bf 4}, 79-93 (1998).
1655:
1656: \bibitem{Vespalcova}
1657: Z. Vespalcova, A.V. Holden, and J. Brindley, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 197}, 147-156
1658: (1995).
1659:
1660: \bibitem{Ono}
1661: N. Ono and T. Ikegami, J. Theor. Biol. {\bf 206}, 243-253 (2000).
1662:
1663: \bibitem{Boer}
1664: M. Boerljist and P. Hogeweg, Physica D {\bf 48}, 17 (1992).
1665:
1666: \bibitem{Owe1}
1667: Karlsson M, Davidson M, Karlsson R, Karlsson A, Bergenholtz J, Konkoli Z,
1668: Jesorka A, Lobovkina T, Hurtig J, Voinova M, Orwar O, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem.
1669: {\bf 55}, 613 (2004).
1670:
1671: \bibitem{Owe2}
1672: Karlsson M, Sott K, Davidson M, Cans AS, Linderholm P, Chiu D, Orwar O, Proc.
1673: Nat. Acad Sci. USA {\bf 99}, 11573 (2002).
1674:
1675: \bibitem{Owe3}
1676: Karlsson A, Karlsson R, Karlsson M, Cans AS, Stromberg A, Ryttsen F, Orwar O,
1677: Nature {\bf 409}, 150 (2001).
1678:
1679: \bibitem{Owe4}
1680: Karlsson M, Nolkrantz K, Davidson MJ, Stromberg A, Ryttsen F, Akerman B, Orwar
1681: O, Anal. Chem. {\bf 72}, 5857 (2000).
1682:
1683: \bibitem{Ross1}
1684: J.P. Laplante, M. Pemberton, A. Hjelmfelt and J. Ross, J. Phys. Chem. {\bf
1685: 99}(25), 10063 (1995).
1686:
1687: \bibitem{Ross2}
1688: A. Hjelmfelt and J. Ross, J. Phys. Chem. {\bf 97}, 7988 (1993).
1689:
1690: \bibitem{Ross3}
1691: A. Hjelmfelt, F.W. Schneider and J. Ross, Science {\bf 260}, 335 (1993).
1692:
1693: \bibitem{Bagley1}
1694: R.J. Bagley and J.D. Farmer, in {\em Artificial Life II}, Eds. C.G. Langton, C.
1695: Taylor, J.D. Farmer and S. Rasmussen, (Addison-Wesley, 1992), pp. 93-140.
1696:
1697: \bibitem{Bagley2}
1698: R.J. Bagley, J.D. Farmer and W. Fontana, in {\em Artificial Life II}, Eds. C.G.
1699: Langton, C. Taylor, J.D. Farmer and S. Rasmussen, (Addison-Wesley, 1992), pp.
1700: 141-158.
1701:
1702: \bibitem{Farmer}
1703: J.D. Farmer, S.A. Kauffman and N.H. Packard, Physica D {\bf 22}, 50-67 (1986).
1704:
1705: \bibitem{Kauffman}
1706: S.A. Kauffman, J. Theor. Biol. {\bf 119}, 1-24 (1986).
1707:
1708: \bibitem{Stadler}
1709: P.F. Stadler, W. Fontana and J.H. Miller, Physica D {\bf 63}, 378-392 (1993).
1710:
1711: \bibitem{Schuster}
1712: P. Schuster, Physica D {\bf 22}, 100-119 (1986).
1713:
1714: \bibitem{Slanina}
1715: F. Slanina and M. Kotrla, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 5587 (1999).
1716:
1717: \bibitem{Jain}
1718: S. Jain and S. Krishna, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 5684 (1998).
1719:
1720: \bibitem{Kotomin1}
1721: E. Kotomin and V. Kuzovkov, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 55}, 2079 (1992).
1722:
1723: \bibitem{Kotomin2}
1724: E. Kotomin and V. Kuzovkov, Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics, Vol. 34,
1725: R.G.Compton and G. Hancock Editors, (Elsevier, 1996), ``Modern aspects of
1726: diffusion-controlled reactions''.
1727:
1728: \bibitem{CompChemKin}
1729: Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics, Vol. 25, ``Diffusion-limited reactions'', C.H.
1730: Bamford, C.F.H. Tipper and R.G. Compton Editors, (Elsevier, 1985).
1731:
1732: \bibitem{Kotomin3}
1733: E. Kotomin and V. Kuzovkov, Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics, Vol. 34,
1734: R.G.Compton and G. Hancock Editors, (Elsevier, 1996), ``Modern aspects of
1735: diffusion-controlled reactions''.
1736:
1737: \bibitem{Mikhailov1}
1738: A. S. Mikhailov, Phys. Rep. {\bf 184}, 307 (1989).
1739:
1740: \bibitem{Ovchinnikov}
1741: A.A. Ovchinnikov, S.F. Timashev, and A.A. Belyy, ``Kinetics of diffusion
1742: controlled chemical processses'', (Nova Science, 1989).
1743:
1744: \bibitem{McQuarrie1}
1745: McQuarrie D, J. Appl. Prob. {\bf 4}, 413-478 (1967).
1746:
1747: \bibitem{Clifford1}
1748: Clifford P, Green NJB, Pilling MJ, J. Phys. Chem. {\bf 86}, 1318-1321 (1982).
1749:
1750: \bibitem{Khairutdinov1}
1751: R.F. Khairutdinov and N. Serpone, Prog. React. Kinetics {\bf 21}, 1-68 (1996).
1752:
1753: \bibitem{KKO}
1754: Z. Konkoli, A. Karlsson, and O. Orwar, J. Phys. Chem. B {\bf 107}, 14077
1755: (2003).
1756:
1757: \bibitem{Akingbehin}
1758: K. Akingbehin, BioSystems {\bf 35}, 223 (1995).
1759:
1760: \bibitem{AkinCon}
1761: K. Akingbehin and M. Conrad, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing {\bf
1762: 6}, 245 (1989).
1763:
1764: \bibitem{Conrad4}
1765: M. Conrad, European Journal of Operational Research {\bf 30}, 280 (1987).
1766:
1767: \bibitem{KirCon1}
1768: K.G. Kirby and M. Conrad, Physica D{\bf 22}, 205 (1986).
1769:
1770: \bibitem{KirCon2}
1771: K.G. Kirby and M. Conrad, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology {\bf 46}(5/6), 765
1772: (1984).
1773:
1774: \bibitem{KamCon1}
1775: R. Kampfner and M. Conrad, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology {\bf 45}(6), 931
1776: (1983).
1777:
1778: \bibitem{KamCon2}
1779: R. Kampfner and M. Conrad, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology {\bf 45}(6), 969
1780: (1983).
1781:
1782: \bibitem{Dittrich}
1783: P. Dittrich, J. Ziegler, and W. Banzhaf, Artificial Life {\bf 7}, 225-275
1784: (2001).
1785:
1786: \bibitem{Hess}
1787: B. Hess and A. Mikhailov, Science {\bf 264}, 223 (1994).
1788:
1789: \bibitem{Gillespie1}
1790: D.T. Gillespie, J. Comp. Phys. {\bf 22}, 403 (1976).
1791:
1792: \bibitem{Gillespie2}
1793: D.T. Gillespie, J. Phys. Chem. {\bf 81}, 2340 (1977).
1794:
1795: \end{thebibliography}
1796:
1797: \end{document}
1798:
1799: