1: \documentclass[reqno]{amsart}
2: %\usepackage{endfloat,setspace}
3: %\doublespace
4: \errorcontextlines10
5: % make allowances for pdftex
6: \newif\ifpdf
7: \ifx \pdfoutput \undefined
8: \usepackage{graphicx}
9: \pdffalse
10: \else
11: \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}
12: \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.jpeg}
13: \fi
14: \usepackage{geompsfi}
15: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb}
16: \usepackage[english]{babel}
17: \usepackage{natbib}
18: \let\cite\citep
19: \bibpunct();a{},
20: \def\meta#1{\texttt{#1}}
21: \def\Omega{V} % HW wants V instead of \Omega
22: \def\dOmega{S} % HW wants S instead of \partial\Omega
23: \def\dtOmega{\tilde S} % idem
24: \def\avj{\alpha_{v_j}} % idem
25: \def\kk{\kappa_k}
26: \def\kp{\kappa_p}
27: \def\ak{\alpha_k}
28: \def\ap{\alpha_p}
29: \def\afi{\alpha_{f_i}}
30: \def\ad{\alpha_D^{}}
31: \def\adi{\alpha_{D_i}^{}}
32: \def\at{\alpha_t}
33: \def\al{\alpha_L}
34: \def\r{v} % idem
35: \def\Kp{K_p} % for kinase/phosphatase
36: \def\Kk{K_k}
37: \def\X{Y}
38: \def\XP{{Y\!P}}
39: \def\Tend{\tau_{\mathrm{end}}}
40: \def\tend{t_{\mathrm{end}}}
41: \long\def\drop#1{}
42: %
43: % Theorems and such
44: %
45: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
46: \def\thetheorem{\thesection.\arabic{theorem}}
47: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
48: %\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
49: %\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}
50: %\newenvironment{proof}[1][] {\par\medbreak{\noindent\bfseries
51: % Proof#1.\quad}} {\hbox{}\hfill\fbox{\ }\medbreak}
52: %
53: % Define a remark environment
54: %
55: \newcounter{remark}[section]
56: \def\theremark{\thesection.\arabic{remark}}
57: \newenvironment{remark}%
58: {\par\medbreak\refstepcounter{remark}\textsc{Remark \theremark~}}%
59: {\par\medskip}%
60: %
61: % Other general definfitions:
62: %
63: \def\pref#1{\ref{#1}}
64: \def\R{{\mathbb R}}
65: \def\mod#1{\left|#1\right|}
66: \def\isdef{\mathbin{\mathop{=}\limits^{\mathrm{def}}}}
67: \def\ld{,\ldots,}
68: %
69: % Reactions:
70: %
71: \def\equil#1{%
72: \quad
73: \mathop{\rightleftarrows}\limits^{{#1}}%
74: \quad
75: }
76: %
77: % Definitions for this document:
78: %
79:
80: %
81: \begin{document}
82: \title[Control of Heterogeneous Networks]{Control of Spatially
83: Heterogeneous and Time-Varying
84: Cellular Reaction Networks: A~New Summation Law}
85: \author{Mark A. Peletier, Hans V. Westerhoff, and Boris N. Kholodenko}
86: \thanks{\noindent Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; \texttt{peletier@cwi.nl}\\
87: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands; \texttt{hw@bio.vu.nl}\\
88: Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA; \texttt{Boris.Kholodenko@mail.tju.ed}}
89:
90: \begin{abstract}
91:
92: A hallmark of a plethora of intracellular signaling pathways is the
93: spatial separation of activation and deactivation processes that
94: potentially results in precipitous gradients of activated
95: proteins. The classical Metabolic Control Analysis (MCA), which
96: quantifies the influence of an individual process on a system variable
97: as the control coefficient, cannot be applied to spatially separated
98: protein networks. The present paper unravels the principles that
99: govern the control over the fluxes and intermediate concentrations in
100: spatially heterogeneous reaction networks. Our main results are two
101: types of the control summation theorems. The first type is a
102: non-trivial generalization of the classical theorems to systems with
103: spatially and temporally varying concentrations. In this
104: generalization, the process of diffusion, which enters as the result
105: of spatial concentration gradients, plays a role similar to other
106: processes such as chemical reactions and membrane transport. The
107: second summation theorem is completely novel. It states that the
108: control by the membrane transport, the diffusion control coefficient
109: multiplied by two, and a newly introduced control coefficient
110: associated with changes in the spatial size of a system (e.g., cell),
111: all add up to one and zero for the control over flux and
112: concentration. Using a simple
113: example of a kinase/phosphatase system in a spherical cell,
114: we speculate that unless active
115: mechanisms of intracellular transport are involved, the threshold cell
116: size is limited by the diffusion control, when it is beginning to
117: exceed the spatial control coefficient significantly.
118:
119:
120:
121: \drop{
122: The original focus of Metabolic Control Analysis was on time-independent,
123: spatially homogeneous metabolic systems. After extensions to
124: time-varying systems~\cite{AcerenzaSauroKacser89} and into
125: the frequency domain~\cite{ReijengaWesterhoffKholodenkoSnoep02}
126: we here extend the classical MCA results to spatially
127: heterogeneous systems.
128:
129: Our main results are two types of summation theorems. The first type
130: is a non-trivial but unsurprising
131: generalization of the classical flux/concentration summation theorem
132: to systems with spatially (and temporally) varying concentrations.
133: In this theorem the process of diffusion, which enters as the result of spatial
134: concentration gradients, plays a role similar to other
135: processes such as chemical reactions and membrane transport.
136:
137: The second type of summation theorem is completely novel, and introduces
138: a new control coefficient $C_L$ associated with changes in the size of
139: the system:
140: \[
141: 2C_{\textrm{diffusion}} + C_{\textrm{membrane transport}}
142: + C_L = a,
143: \]
144: where $a=1$ for flux control and $a=0$ for concentration control.
145: In contrast with the classical result reactive processes do not enter
146: in this theorem,
147: and the diffusion control coefficient is multiplied by a factor $2$.
148:
149: In this paper we derive these two types of summation theorem,
150: comment on the interpretation of the theorems and the novel
151: control coefficient $C_L$, and examine in detail a simple example of
152: a kinase/phosphatase system.
153: }
154: \end{abstract}
155: \maketitle
156: %
157: \section{Introduction}
158:
159: Extracellular information received by plasma membrane receptors is
160: processed, encoded, and transferred to the nucleus through activation
161: and spatial relocation of multiple signalling components. Receptor
162: activation triggers signalling responses associated with the
163: mobilization of a plethora of adapter and target proteins to the
164: plasma membrane~\cite{HaughLauffenburger97,KholodenkoHoekWesterhoffTCB}.
165: Proteins activated e.g.\ by phosphorylation at the cell
166: surface travel to stimulate critical regulatory targets at various
167: cellular sites including the nucleus. During and after the travel,
168: these proteins are inactivated, e.g.\ through dephosphorylation.
169: For instance, a protein
170: phosphorylated by a plasma-membrane associated protein kinase
171: can be dephosphorylated by
172: a phosphatase in the cytosol or nucleus. The
173: transport between cellular locations, where the activation and
174: inactivation occur, is passive (thermal diffusion), driven by spatial
175: gradients in the concentrations.
176: In some cases, not to be discussed here, motor proteins or
177: endocytosis
178: may be involved~\cite{Kholodenko02}. Previous work estimated that these
179: spatial gradients may be large, and that therefore diffusion may
180: contribute to the control of signal
181: transduction~\cite{BrownKholodenko99,KholodenkoBrownHoek00}.
182:
183: For spatially homogeneous reaction networks, the control over
184: fluxes and intermediate concentrations has been studied
185: both experimentally and theoretically (reviewed in~\cite{Fell97}). The
186: control is generally quantified as the extent to which any type of molecular
187: process influences a system variable, such as the flux or
188: concentration. The control coefficients are defined as
189: the ratios of the fractional changes in the system variable to that
190: of the biochemical activity which caused the
191: system change. Mathematically, the stability of a system steady state
192: is required and the changes are considered as infinitesimally small,
193: i.e., the coefficients are expressed as the log to log derivatives~\cite{Fell97}.
194: Important principles underlying the control of
195: biochemical reaction networks in well-stirred reactors have been
196: worked out recently. For instance, it can be shown that a large
197: increase in the activity of a single enzyme does not result in a
198: substantial increase in the flux for almost any metabolic network;
199: marked flux increase can be achieved by a concerted modulation of
200: several pathway reactions~\cite{KacserAcerenza93}.
201: In metabolic control analysis (MCA),
202: this result is related to the so-called summation theorem, which
203: states that the sum of the enzyme control coefficients adds up to
204: $1$~\cite{KacserBurns73,HeinrichRapoport73,WesterhoffVanDam87}.
205: There is no rate-limiting enzyme, the control is shared between all
206: network processes.
207:
208: The present paper unravels the principles that govern the control
209: pattern in spatially heterogeneous cellular networks. We demonstrate
210: new properties of control that result from the spatial
211: aspect of diffusion and separation of signalling reactions. The
212: control summation theorems, relevant for these networks, are formulated
213: and proven.
214:
215: \section{Methods}
216:
217: \subsection{Description of the system}
218:
219: We consider living metabolic systems consisting of $n$ internal
220: chemical species $Y_1\ld Y_n$,
221: with concentrations $c_1\ld c_n$. These species interact
222: via $m$ reactions which can be represented as
223: \begin{equation}
224: \label{reaction:general}
225: \sum_{i=1}^n N_{ij}^+ Y_i \equil{} \sum_{i=1}^n N_{ij}^- Y_i,
226: \qquad j = 1\ld m
227: \end{equation}
228: where $N_{ij}^{\pm}$ are the dimensionless forward and reverse stoichiometric
229: coefficients for the consumption of species $Y_i$ in the forward
230: and reverse reactions $j$. We write $N_{ij} = N_{ij}^- - N_{ij}^+$
231: for the net stoichiometric component. Reaction $j$ has rate
232: $\avj\r_j(c_1\ld c_n)$, so that in the absence of diffusion
233: the time evolution of the concentrations
234: $c_i$ should be given by
235: \[
236: \frac{\partial}{\partial t} c_i = \sum_{j=1}^m N_{ij} \avj\r_j, \qquad
237: i = 1\ld n.
238: \]
239: $c_i$ has the dimension of concentration [M], or mole number per unit
240: volume.
241: The rate of the reaction~\pref{reaction:general}, i.e.\ $\r_j$, has the
242: dimension of concentration per unit time [M/s]. It is a function of
243: the kinetic parameters of the enzyme catalyzing that reaction (or if
244: non-enzymatic of the chemical reaction itself),
245: e.g.\ $K_M$,
246: the concentration of the enzyme, and the concentrations of substrates,
247: products and allosteric modifiers of the reaction.
248: The dimensionless parameter $\avj$ is the tool we shall use
249: to modulate the activity of reaction $\r_j$.
250:
251: In this paper we will be interested in cases in which concentrations
252: can \emph{not} be assumed homogeneous in space inside the systems.
253: For thermodynamic reasons, living systems need to be open for at least
254: some chemical compounds. These substances are transported across
255: the system membrane, usually by transport proteins, i.e.\ effectively
256: there is a sink or source for some of the species
257: on the system boundary, e.g.\ the (plasma) membrane.
258: The spatial separation between the sink or source and
259: the chemistry that takes place in the bulk phase
260: then creates spatial variations in concentration.
261:
262: When the system is not
263: homogeneous and not at steady state, the concentrations need to be
264: specified as functions of time and space (i.e.\ $c_i(x,t)$), and
265: boundary fluxes are required.
266: The principal difficulty
267: accompanying the spatial inhomogeneity
268: of the concentrations of any component $Y_i$, which
269: makes the classical MCA inapplicable, is that the number of `explicit'
270: variables associated with $Y_i$ becomes infinitely large.
271: The reactions are
272: assumed to take place in an enclosed three-dimensional space that is
273: represented by a bounded set of $x_1,x_2,x_3$-coordinates, i.e.\ the volume
274: $\Omega\subset \R^3$. For instance, $\Omega$ can
275: correspond to the cytoplasm or the mitochondrial matrix. Inside $\Omega$
276: the species react with each other, according to Eq.~\pref{reaction:general};
277: in addition they undergo diffusive transport. The concentrations
278: $c_i$ of the species are functions of time ($0 < t < \tend$) and space
279: ($x\in\Omega$), and their evolution is governed by the balance
280: (reaction-diffusion)
281: equations~\cite{KatchalskyCurran65}
282: \begin{equation}
283: \label{eq:pde:general}
284: \frac{\partial}{\partial t} c_i - \adi D_i \Delta c_i
285: = \sum_{j=1}^m N_{ij} \avj \r_j, \qquad
286: x\in \Omega, \quad 0 < t < \tend.
287: \end{equation}
288: The parameter $D_i$ is the diffusion coefficient of species $Y_i$. It is
289: considered homogeneous. For Cartesian coordinates the Laplacian
290: $\Delta$ is defined as
291: \[
292: \Delta = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2}
293: +\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}
294: +\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2}.
295: \]
296: The operator $\Delta$ has the dimension of $1/\textrm{length}^2$ $[\mathrm m^{-2}]$.
297: $D_i$ has the
298: dimension of surface per time $[\mathrm{m}^2/\mathrm{s}]$
299: and is assumed to be the same
300: throughout volume $\Omega$. In order to assess the importance of diffusion of
301: a substance for the behavior of the system, we shall modulate the
302: diffusion processes. To this aim, $D_i$ is multiplied by the
303: dimensionless modulation parameter $\adi$, which has the
304: value of 1 in the reference state.
305:
306: In addition to Eq.~\pref{eq:pde:general},
307: which holds in the bulk, represented by $\Omega$, we need to
308: specify the behaviour at the boundary $\dOmega$ of the
309: set $\Omega$.
310: For a species $Y_i$ for which the membrane is a passive
311: barrier we assume a closed boundary condition,
312: \begin{equation}
313: \label{eq:bc_closed}
314: -\adi D_i \frac{\partial c_i}{\partial \nu} = 0 \qquad \text{on }\dOmega.
315: \end{equation}
316: The vector $\nu$ is the normal vector of unit length pointing out
317: of $\Omega$, and $\partial c_i/\partial \nu$ is the derivative
318: of $c_i$ in the direction of $\nu$. This makes the quantity
319: $-\adi D_i \partial c_i/\partial \nu$ the outward diffusive flux of
320: species $Y_i$.
321:
322: If a species is transported across the boundary of $\Omega$,
323: then the boundary condition takes a similar form,
324: but with non-zero right-hand side,
325: \begin{equation}
326: \label{eq:bc_open}
327: -\adi D_i \frac{\partial c_i}{\partial \nu}
328: = \afi f_i \qquad \text{on }\dOmega,
329: \end{equation}
330: where $f_i$ is the transport rate per unit surface area. $f_i$ can
331: be due to active transport or a (bio)chemical reaction at the
332: membrane surface
333: and may be a function of the
334: concentrations $c_1\ld c_n$.
335: There is at least
336: one non-zero flux $\afi f_i$ (one of which we conveniently
337: assume to correspond
338: to $i=1$). Like other $\alpha$'s, $\afi $ is a parameter
339: that we shall use to modulate the transport activity.
340: This modulation is equivalent
341: to changes in the activity or concentration of membrane enzymes or carriers.
342: We shall refer to
343: the `flux $J$ through the system' as the magnitude of the net export of $Y_1$,
344: integrated over the surface of $\Omega$ and normalized by the surface area:
345: \begin{equation}
346: \label{def:J}
347: J = \frac{\alpha_{f_1}}{\mod{\dOmega}} \int_{\dOmega} f_1 \, dS
348: \end{equation}
349: We normalize the total flow with respect to the corresponding surface area
350: to obtain a surface-averaged flux. The difference in role
351: of a reaction rate in
352: the bulk phase ($\r_j$) and a transport rate ($f_i$) is underlined by the
353: difference in the dimensionality---the former is given in volume concentration
354: per time unit (e.g., M/s), whereas the latter is expressed in surface
355: concentration (density) per time unit (e.g., $\mathrm{M\cdot m/s}$).
356: We comprise Eq.~\pref{eq:bc_closed} into Eq.~\pref{eq:bc_open}
357: by allowing $f_i$ to be zero.
358: Some reactions that involve cytoplasmic substances only occur
359: in the membrane or at the membrane surface.
360: This is equivalent to the substrate of the reaction being
361: exported and the product of the reaction being imported, and will
362: be treated as such.
363:
364:
365:
366: \subsection{Parameter Modulation and Control Analysis}
367:
368: We have explicitly introduced
369: dimensionless modulation parameters $\avj$, $\adi $, and $\afi $, through which
370: the system can be modified. For the formulation and interpretation
371: of control theorems associated with diffusion we need to
372: introduce two additional forms of modulation, associated with
373: space and time, in the following way. We assume that the spatial
374: and temporal variables $x_1,x_2,x_3$, and $t$, are related to
375: a reference spatial and temporal frame $\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_3$, and $\tau$,
376: via dimensionless modulation parameters $\al$ and $\at$:
377: \begin{equation}
378: \label{spacetime_modulation}
379: x_1= \al \xi_1, \qquad x_2 = \al \xi_2, \qquad x_3 = \al \xi_3, \qquad
380: \text{and} \qquad t = \at \tau.
381: \end{equation}
382: Note that a reference time interval $[0,\Tend]$ is rescaled to
383: an actual time interval $[0,\at \Tend] = \at [0,\Tend]$;
384: and similarly, the reference
385: volume $V$ is scaled to an actual volume $\al V$
386: (Figure~\ref{fig:scaling_Omega}).
387:
388: \begin{figure}[ht]
389: \centerline{\psfig{figure=scaling_Omega,height=3.5cm}}
390: \caption{The domain $\Omega$ is scaled by geometric multiplication}
391: \label{fig:scaling_Omega}
392: \end{figure}
393:
394:
395: We shall be explicit about the cause-and-effect relationship that
396: exists between \emph{parameters} and \emph{state}.
397: The parameters are the kinetic constants in rate
398: functions $\r_j$ and $f_i$ and diffusion coefficients $D_i$,
399: together with their modulators $\avj$, $\adi $, and $\afi $. We also consider
400: the volume $\Omega$ and the time interval $[0,\Tend]$ as parameters, together
401: with the space and time modulators $\al$ and $\at$.
402: A final `parameter' that we need to take into account is the
403: distribution of all species in space at the initial time.
404:
405: For a given choice of all parameters the concentration of each of the species
406: $Y_i$ is determined uniquely as a function of space and time, according
407: to Eqs.~\pref{eq:pde:general} and~\pref{eq:bc_open}.
408: The choice of parameters yields a a unique set of
409: functions $c_i(x,t)$, each defined at every
410: point $x\in \al \Omega$ and at each time $t \in [0,\at\Tend]$.
411:
412: Note that the functions $c_i$ are defined on different domains
413: for different $\al$ and $\at$. For comparison purposes it will be
414: more convenient to think of $c_i$ as functions of the
415: reference coordinates $\xi$ and $\tau$ and the modulation parameters $\alpha$,
416: i.e.\ $c_i(\xi,\tau,\alpha)$,
417: where $\xi\in V$, $\tau \in [0,\Tend]$, and $\alpha = (\avj,\adi,\afi,\al,\at)$.
418: The functions $c_i(\xi,\tau,\alpha)$ determine the \emph{state} of the system
419: associated with the choice of parameters.
420:
421: The change of coordinates, from $(x,t)$ to $(\xi,\tau)$, induces
422: a small modification in Eqs.~\pref{eq:pde:general}
423: and~\pref{eq:bc_open},
424: which now become
425: \begin{alignat}2
426: \label{eq:pde:general_XT}
427: &\at^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} c_i - \al^{-2} \adi D_i \Delta c_i
428: = \sum_{j=1}^m N_{ij} \avj \r_j, &\qquad
429: &\xi\in \Omega, \quad 0 < \tau < \Tend \\
430: \label{eq:bc_open_XT}
431: &-\al^{-1}\adi D_i \frac{\partial c_i}{\partial \nu}
432: = \afi f_i &\qquad &\xi\in \dOmega, \quad 0 < \tau < \Tend
433: \end{alignat}
434: Note that the differentiation in the operators $\Delta$ and
435: $\partial/\partial\nu$ is now with respect to~$\xi$.
436: The definition of the flux, however, remains unchanged under this
437: change of coordinates, because of the surface averaging:
438: \begin{equation}
439: \label{def:J_XT}
440: J = \frac{\alpha_{f_1}}{\mod{\dOmega}} \int_{\dOmega} f_1 \, dS
441: \end{equation}
442:
443: In the vein of Metabolic Control Analysis
444: we will consider a \emph{reference state} associated with the choice
445: $\avj=\adi =\afi =\al=\at=1$
446: and a second state, resulting from an infinitesimal
447: change in one of these modulators. The difference between the
448: two states will be taken to characterize
449: the control that the modulated parameter has on the state of the
450: system. The dimensionless parameter $\avj$ is the tool we shall use
451: to modulate the activity of reaction $\r_j$.
452: Departures of $\avj$ from 1 correspond to a modulation of enzyme catalytic
453: activity or concentration, or to a proportional modulation of all rate
454: constants of the reaction step if it is not enzyme catalyzed (this
455: modulation leaves the equilibrium constant unchanged, for details
456: see~\cite{KholodenkoWesterhoff93,KholodenkoWesterhoff94,KholodenkoWesterhoff95},
457: where this approach was introduced). For instance, if
458: reaction~\pref{reaction:general}
459: is a protein-protein interaction (a central reaction in signaling
460: networks), the rate $\r_j$ depends on two kinetic constants, $k_{\mathrm{on}}$
461: and $k_{\mathrm{off}}$,
462: and a change in $\avj$ corresponds to equal proportional change of both
463: constants that leaves the dissociation (equilibrium) constant $K_d$
464: unchanged. The ratio of the fractional change in a state variable
465: of the reaction network,
466: such as $J$ or $c_k$, and the fractional change in
467: $\avj$ determines the control coefficient with respect to reaction rate $\r_j$
468: (in the limit of infinitesimally small changes):
469: \[
470: C_{v_j}^J = \left. \frac{d \ln J}{d\ln\avj}\right|_{\avj=1}, \qquad
471: C_{v_j}^{c_k} = \left.\frac{d \ln c_k}{d\ln\avj}\right|_{\avj=1},
472: \]
473: where $\avj$ = 1
474: corresponds to the reference state (all other parameters are assumed
475: fixed). Similarly, considering two states corresponding to small
476: modulations in dimensionless parameters, $\afi$ and $\adi$, we define the
477: control coefficients with respect to transport reaction and diffusion,
478: $C^J_{f_i}$ and $C^J_{D_i}$.
479:
480: An intrinsically novel control coefficient emerges as the
481: heterogeneous spatial organization of cellular reaction network is
482: taken into account. This coefficient is obtained when the size ($L$) of
483: the system is modified through a modulation of the dimensionless
484: parameter $\al$, as shown schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling_Omega},
485: whilst keeping fixed
486: all other parameters. In a cell setting, these parameters include the
487: volume and surface concentrations of enzymes and other molecular
488: forms, the total concentrations of which are conserved (for instance, the total
489: amount of phosphorylated and unphosphorylated forms of a
490: protein) in network
491: reactions described by Eqs.~\pref{eq:pde:general_XT} and~\pref{eq:bc_open_XT}.
492: Therefore, increasing the cell size also implies adding
493: conserved chemical moieties and additional enzymes both to the bulk
494: aqueous phase and cell membranes. Accordingly, the `spatial' control
495: coefficient is defined as $C^J_L = d\ln J/d\ln \al$,
496: where only the spatial variables are
497: modulated, as described above (Eq.~\pref{spacetime_modulation}).
498: It is of note, that the
499: parameter $L$ can be interpreted as the characteristic cell size,
500: e.g., the volume to surface ratio, whose fractional changes are equal
501: to the fractional changes in $\al$.
502:
503:
504:
505: \medskip
506:
507: A special case of Eq.~\pref{eq:pde:general_XT}
508: arises when we only consider steady-state,
509: non-equilibrium configurations; these correspond to solutions
510: $c_1(\xi)\ld c_n(\xi)$ of the steady-state equations
511: \begin{equation}
512: \label{eq:pde:stationary}
513: - \al^{-2} \adi D_i \Delta c_i
514: = \sum_{j=1}^m N_{ij} \avj \r_j, \qquad
515: \xi\in \Omega,
516: \end{equation}
517: with boundary conditions~\pref{eq:bc_open_XT}.
518: For the purposes of this paper we assume that
519: solutions of this set of equations are locally unique and asymptotically
520: stable.
521:
522: \section{Results: the first summation theorem}
523:
524: In a metabolic network where concentrations are homogeneous,
525: the sum of the flux control by all biochemical reactions
526: equals~$1$~\cite{KacserBurns73,HeinrichRapoport73}.
527: We generalize this summation theorem for systems where
528: concentrations may not be homogeneous and where transport occurs ---
529: here the sum over all the reactive processes need not be 1.
530: The flux may be partially controlled by diffusion or by transport
531: and it is because of this control that the classical summation theorem
532: no longer holds.
533: The generalized summation theorem
534: takes the form
535: \begin{equation}
536: \label{th:1}
537: \sum_{i=1}^n C_{D_i}^J + \sum_{j=1}^m C_{v_j}^J +\sum_{i=1}^n C_{f_i}^J
538: = 1.
539: \end{equation}
540: In words this theorem reads: the total control by all diffusion, reaction,
541: and transport processes on any steady state flux
542: equals~$1$. The proof of Eq.~\pref{th:1} is based on Euler's
543: theorem on homogeneous function, which can be stated as follows.
544: Let $g$ be a function of $p_1\ld p_n$, such that for all $p_i$ and
545: for all $\lambda >0$,
546: \begin{equation}
547: \label{eq:scaling_f}
548: g(\lambda^{\beta_1} p_1\ld \lambda^{\beta_n} p_n)
549: = \lambda^\gamma g(p_1\ld p_n),
550: \end{equation}
551: for some $\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_n,\gamma\in\R$,
552: i.e.,\ $g(p_1,\ldots,p_n)$ is the same function
553: after the transformation
554: \begin{equation}
555: \label{eq:scaling_g}
556: \tilde g= \lambda^\gamma g,
557: \qquad \tilde p_i = \lambda^{\beta_i} p_i.
558: \end{equation}
559:
560: Then
561: \begin{equation}
562: \label{eq:lemma:scaling}
563: \sum_{i=1}^n \beta_i \, \frac{\partial \ln |g|}{\partial \ln p_i} = \gamma.
564: \end{equation}
565:
566: It may be noted that for some of the parameters $p_i$, $\beta_i$
567: may equal zero.
568: These parameters are not modulated in Eq.~\pref{eq:scaling_g},
569: and Eq.~\pref{eq:lemma:scaling} shows that these parameters
570: are absent from the summation theorem.
571:
572: For $\gamma$ and all $\beta_i$ equal to~$1$,
573: Eq.~\pref{eq:lemma:scaling} reminds of the flux control
574: summation theorem of Metabolic Control
575: Analysis~\cite{KacserBurns73,HeinrichRapoport73}, but it may
576: not be clear \emph{a priori} what function and which parameters should be
577: considered. When searching for other than the traditional summation
578: theorems, a strategy may prove useful. One strategy is that of
579: leaving the system in essence in the same state (cf.~\cite{KacserBurns73}).
580: In terms of the system under consideration this translates into
581: the concentrations $c_i(\xi,\tau)$ remaining the same when
582: the parameters $p_i$ of Eq.~\pref{eq:scaling_g} are changed.
583:
584:
585:
586: In order to implement the above strategy and examine under what type
587: of parameter changes $c_i(\xi,\tau)$ might be constant, one may inspect the
588: equations that define~$c_i$. For steady states
589: Eqs.~\pref{eq:pde:stationary} and~\pref{eq:bc_open_XT} define
590: $c_i(\xi)$. Multiplying both equations by the same factor $\lambda$ should
591: leave their solutions unchanged. Consequently, multiplying all $\adi$, all
592: $\avj $, and all $\afi $ by that same factor should not change the solutions
593: $c_i(\xi)$ either: the terms in the equations are homogeneous functions of first
594: order of the parameters $\adi$, $\avj $, and $\afi $.
595: When only these parameters are
596: modulated, the specific transport rate remains unaltered, because the
597: metabolite concentrations remain constant and neither
598: $\adi $, $\avj$, or $\afi $ occurs in the function $f_i(c_1\ld c_n)$.
599: Consequently $f_i$ remains unchanged, and therefore we can calculate the
600: corresponding flux as a function of $\lambda$,
601: \[
602: J(\lambda) = \lambda \, \frac{\alpha_{f_1}}{\mod{\dOmega}}
603: \int_{\dOmega} f_1 = \lambda J(1).
604: \]
605: We can reformulate this result as follows: we have shown that the flux
606: $J$, as a function of the parameters $\adi$, $\avj$, and $\afi$, satisfies
607: \begin{multline*}
608: J(\lambda \alpha_{D_1}\ld \lambda \alpha_{D_n},
609: \lambda \alpha_{v_1}\ld \lambda \alpha_{v_m},
610: \lambda \alpha_{f_1}\ld \lambda \alpha_{f_n}) \\
611: = \lambda J(\alpha_{D_1}\ld \alpha_{D_n}, \alpha_{v_1}\ld \alpha_{v_m}, \alpha_{f_1}\ld
612: \alpha_{f_n}).
613: \end{multline*}
614: Equality~\pref{th:1} now follows from Eq.~\pref{eq:lemma:scaling}.
615:
616:
617: It should be remembered that the parameters $\adi $, $\avj$, and
618: $\afi $ represent the activities of diffusion, chemical, and transport
619: processes, respectively. Consequently, Eq.~\pref{th:1} really refers to a
620: theorem concerning the control by diffusion, chemistry and transport.
621: It is an extension, both in concept and in proof, of the familiar flux
622: control summation theorem of Metabolic Control Analysis. The latter
623: only dealt with the middle terms of the left-hand side and then only
624: the enzyme catalyzed reactions thereof, it assumed concentrations to
625: be homogeneous in space, and neglected explicit transport terms.
626:
627: A further extension to the above methodology will generalize the above
628: summation theorem to systems that depend on time: Dropping
629: the assumption of steady state, Eqs.~\pref{eq:pde:general_XT}
630: and~\pref{eq:bc_open_XT} become the equations
631: that define $c_i(\xi,\tau)$. Multiplying both these equations by the same
632: factor $\lambda$ again leaves their solutions unchanged. Consequently:
633: \begin{equation}
634: \label{th:1a}
635: -C^{J(\tau)}_t + \sum_{i=1}^n C_{D_i}^{J(\tau)}
636: + \sum_{j=1}^m C_{v_j}^{J(\tau)} +\sum_{i=1}^n C_{f_i}^{J(\tau)}
637: = 1.
638: \end{equation}
639: Here $C^{J(\tau)}_t$ coincides with the time-control coefficient defined
640: in~\cite{AcerenzaSauroKacser89}. How can we understand this theorem and
641: in particular this new time-control coefficient? Let us
642: first consider the situation that would ensue from simultaneously and
643: equally increasing all the parameters $\adi$, $\avj$, and
644: $\afi$ by $1\,\%$ in the
645: absence of an increase in $\at$. Because all activities increase, also the
646: flux $J$ should increase. However, the system should also change
647: more quickly in time, i.e.\ the increase in magnitude of $J$ should occur
648: earlier. To obtain a proportionate increase in $J$, one should look at
649: an earlier point in time, i.e.\ time should be $1\, \%$ earlier,
650: or, keeping in mind that $t=\at T$, $\at = 0.99$.
651:
652: $C^{J(\tau)}_t$ should not be confused with the time-dependent
653: control coefficients defined by \cite{WesterhoffVanDam87,HeinrichReder91}.
654: For a further discussion of the distinctions, see
655: also~\cite{KholodenkoDeminWesterhoff97}
656: for the control analysis of relaxations
657: in the vicinity of the steady state.
658:
659: Often, as time goes to infinity,
660: the system relaxes to a steady state. The control by time on the flux
661: then reduces to zero and the summation theorem for the time dependent
662: control coefficients reduces to the one for steady state control
663: coefficients (Eq.~\pref{th:1}).
664:
665: \medskip
666: The summation theorem~\pref{th:1a} is more general than suggested by the
667: above derivation. It can be derived without requiring explicit
668: equations for the time evolution of the system, such as
669: Eqs.~\pref{eq:pde:general_XT} and~\pref{eq:bc_open_XT}.
670: The proof then considers an actual physical transformation of the
671: system under consideration: all the time dependent elemental processes
672: are increased by the same factor $\lambda$. This implies that everything
673: happens in the same way, but faster by that same factor $\lambda$.
674: We represent this concept of `faster' by the parameter $\at$,
675: as above (since $t = \at \tau$, $\at<1$ corresponds
676: to `faster', and $\at>1$ to `slower').
677: Writing the parameter-dependence explicitly,
678: \[
679: c_i(\xi,\tau) =c_i(\xi,\tau;\adi,\avj,\afi,\al,\at),
680: \]
681: we have
682: \[
683: c_i\left(\xi,\tau;\lambda\adi,\lambda\avj ,\lambda\afi,\al,\frac\at\lambda\right)
684: = c_i(\xi,\tau;\adi,\avj,\afi,\afi,\at),
685: \]
686: or in other words, $c_i$ is homogeneous of zeroth order in
687: $\adi $, $\avj $, $\afi $, and $1/\at$.
688: Using Eq.~\pref{eq:lemma:scaling}
689: this yields the summation theorem for concentrations,
690: \begin{equation}
691: \label{th:1b}
692: - C^{c_k}_t + \sum_{i=1}^n C_{D_i}^{c_k}
693: + \sum_{j=1}^m C_{v_j}^{c_k} +\sum_{i=1}^n C_{f_i}^{c_k}
694: = 0.
695: \end{equation}
696: where $c_k$ is short for $c_k(\xi,\tau)$.
697: A similar result for the flux,
698: \[
699: J\left(\tau;\lambda\adi ,\lambda\avj ,\lambda\afi ,\frac\at\lambda\right)
700: = \lambda J(\tau;\adi ,\avj ,\afi ,\at),
701: \]
702: shows that the flux is homogeneous of first order in
703: $\adi $, $\avj $, $\afi $, and $1/\at$, resulting in the summation
704: theorem Eq.~\pref{th:1a}.
705:
706:
707:
708:
709: \section{A novel summation theorem}
710:
711: The above theorem is an extension of the theorem
712: of~\cite{AcerenzaSauroKacser89}
713: to cases with transport and diffusion. The theorem we shall develop
714: now is intrinsically new as its origin lies in spatial aspects that
715: have hitherto been neglected in Metabolic Control Analysis~\cite{Fell97}.
716: The
717: strategy we follow is again to consider a transformation for which the
718: system properties should not change. We
719: first discuss the nature of diffusion, as illustrated by Einstein's
720: diffusion equation:
721: \[
722: \delta x = \sqrt{n_D D \delta t},
723: \]
724: where $n_D$ is a number of order 1 that depends on the dimensionality.
725: In words, the displacement due to diffusion increases with the square
726: root of the diffusion coefficient. Consequently, increasing all
727: diffusion coefficients by $\lambda^2$ should increase all displacement by the
728: factor $\lambda$.
729:
730: This becomes obvious when considering Eq.~\pref{eq:pde:general_XT}.
731: Replacing $\adi$ by $\lambda^2\adi$ and $\al$ by $\lambda\al$ leaves
732: Eq.~\pref{eq:pde:general_XT} unchanged. The boundary
733: condition~\pref{eq:bc_open_XT} in a natural way suggests
734: replacing $\afi $ by $\lambda\afi $,
735: so that this equation is also essentially
736: unchanged. As a result this choice of parameters leaves
737: the solution $c_i$ invariant:
738: \begin{equation}
739: \label{eq:invariant_c_i}
740: c_i(\xi,\tau; \lambda^2\adi, \avj, \lambda\afi,\lambda \al, \at)
741: = c_i(\xi,\tau; \adi, \avj, \afi, \al,\at).
742: \end{equation}
743: We immediately deduce the second summation theorem for concentrations,
744: \begin{equation}
745: \label{th:2_c}
746: 2\sum_{i=1}^n C^c_{D_i} + \sum_{i=1}^n C^c_{f_i} + C^c_L = 0,
747: \end{equation}
748: where $c$ stands for any $c_i(\xi,\tau)$. Similarly, since
749: the flux satisfies
750: \[
751: J(\tau;\lambda^2\adi, \avj, \lambda\afi,\lambda \al, \at)
752: = \lambda J(\tau;\adi, \avj, \afi, \al,\at),
753: \]
754: the associated summation theorem results
755: \begin{equation}
756: \label{th:2_j}
757: 2\sum_{i=1}^n C^{J(\tau)}_{D_i} + \sum_{i=1}^n C^{J(\tau)}_{f_i} + C^{J(\tau)}_L = 1.
758: \end{equation}
759: Naturally, if we only consider steady states, then $c_i(\xi,\tau)$ reduces
760: to $c_i(\xi)$, and $J(\tau)$ to $J$.
761:
762: The modulation of $V$, via $\al$, implicated
763: in the evaluation of the corresponding control coefficient is one in
764: which the size of the system changes; it is important,
765: however, that the system size changes whilst
766: keeping the volume concentration of enzymes in the bulk aqueous phase
767: constant and the surface concentrations of the membrane enzymes
768: constant.
769:
770:
771:
772: \bigskip
773:
774: To illustrate the modulation introduced above, consider
775: the case of a one-dimensional spatial domain of the
776: form $(0,\infty)$; the membrane is thought to be at $x=0$,
777: and the cell is deemed so large that the `other end' is effectively
778: at infinity. For such a `half-infinite' cell, in non-equilibrium
779: steady-state, Eq.~\pref{th:2_j} reduces to
780: \begin{equation}
781: \label{th:2a}
782: 2 \sum_{i=1}^n C^J_{D_i} + \sum_{i=1}^n C^J_{f_i} = 1
783: \end{equation}
784: where $J$ is the flux at the border ($x=0$); $C^J_L$ vanishes
785: as a result of the infinite size. Figure~\ref{fig:scaling_c}
786: shows how the solution $c_i(x)$ depends on the parameter modulation
787: by the factor $\lambda$ given in Eq.~\pref{eq:invariant_c_i}. Note that
788: here $c_i$ is plotted as a function of $x$; when plotted as a function
789: of $\xi$, the graphs for different~$\lambda$ coincide
790: (cf.~\pref{eq:invariant_c_i}).
791:
792: \drop{
793: As mentioned in the introduction, the combined effect of the
794: sinks and sources at the membrane and reactivity in the bulk
795: is spatial inhomogeneity of the
796: concentrations. We expect (and shall confirm further below)
797: that this effect is mostly felt close to
798: the membrane, and that the contribution of the chemical reactions
799: to the total flux $J$ decreases with the distance to the membrane.
800: This suggests that for large cells the contribution to the
801: surface flux is associated with a relatively thin layer near the
802: membrane, while the bulk of the cell plays no role.
803: With this situation in mind,
804: we consider as an example
805: the (simpler) case of a one-dimensional spatial domain of the
806: form $(0,\infty)$; the membrane is thought to be at $x=0$,
807: and the cell is deemed so large that the `other end' is effectively
808: at infinity. For such a `half-infinite' cell, in non-equilibrium
809: steady-state, we derive the following
810: summation theorem:
811: \begin{equation}
812: \label{th:2a}
813: 2 \sum_{i=1}^n C^J_{D_i} + \sum_{i=1}^n C^J_{f_i} = 1
814: \end{equation}
815: where $J$ is the flux at the border ($x=0$).
816:
817: To prove Eq.~\pref{th:2a} we start by choosing parameters $D_i$
818: and functions $\r_j$ and $f_i$, and we let $c_1\ld c_n$ be the corresponding
819: solution, defined on the spatial domain $(0,\infty)$.
820: We perturb the parameters by choosing the modulators
821: as follows:
822: \[
823: \adi = \lambda^2, \qquad \avj = 1, \qquad \afi = \lambda,
824: \qquad \al = \lambda.
825: \]
826: Because of this scaling, functions $c_i$ that are given in the reference
827: frame ($c_i(\xi)$) `spread out' with increasing $\lambda$, as indicated
828: in Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling_c}.
829: }
830: \begin{figure}[ht]
831: \centerline{\psfig{figure=scaling_c,height=3.5cm}}
832: \caption{The scaling in $\lambda$ for a
833: two-species system}
834: \label{fig:scaling_c}
835: \end{figure}
836: \drop{
837: The choice of the modulators implies that functions $c_i(\xi)$
838: that are solutions of Eqs.~\pref{eq:pde:stationary} and~\pref{eq:bc_open_XT}
839: for $\lambda=1$ remain solutions when $\lambda>1$.
840: By substituting into Eq.~\pref{def:J_XT} we find that
841: \[
842: J(\lambda) = \lambda\, J(1),
843: \]
844: so that Eq.~\pref{th:2a} follows from Eq.~\pref{eq:lemma:scaling}.
845:
846: }
847:
848:
849:
850: \section{An explicit example system}
851: \label{sec:ex}
852:
853: For certain simple cases control coefficients can be calculated explicitly.
854: We do so here for a kinase/phosphatase example
855: that we also discussed in~\cite{BrownKholodenko99,KholodenkoBrownHoek00}.
856: There are two species, $\X$ and $\XP$, which are the unphosphorylated
857: and phosphorylated form of a given protein; the kinase converts
858: $\X$ into $\XP$, and the phosphatase does the reverse.
859:
860: Besides providing an illustration of the concepts and results
861: discussed above we wish to demonstrate the influence
862: of the system geometry on the control coefficients. We consider
863: two cases:
864: \begin{enumerate}
865: \item $\Omega$ is bounded by two parallel membranes; the kinase
866: reaction is localized to one membrane, the phosphatase to the other
867: (Figure~\ref{fig:kp1});
868: \item $\Omega$ is a spherical region (e.g.\ a cell or an organelle)
869: bounded by a membrane; the kinase is localized at the membrane,
870: but the phosphatase is distributed throughout the bulk
871: (Figure~\ref{fig:kp2}).
872: \end{enumerate}
873: \begin{figure}
874: \centerline{\psfig{figure=case1c,height=3cm}}
875: \caption{Geometry 1: a slice bounded by parallel membranes}
876: \label{fig:kp1}
877: \end{figure}
878: \begin{figure}
879: \centerline{\psfig{figure=case2a,height=3cm}}
880: \caption{Geometry 2: a spherical cell}
881: \label{fig:kp2}
882: \end{figure}
883:
884: As we shall see below, in the case of parallel membranes the
885: size control coefficient $C^J_L$ is \emph{negative}: an increase in the
886: distance between the membranes reduces the flux through the system.
887: However, when the phosphatase is not membrane-bound but distributed,
888: as in the second case, increasing the system size
889: actually increases the flux: $C^J_L$ is \emph{positive}.
890:
891: \subsection{Two parallel membranes}
892:
893: We assume that the system is large with respect to the
894: distance $L$ between the membranes and therefore
895: adopt a one-dimensional formulation. We also restrict the study
896: to (non-equilibrium) steady state.
897:
898: Since no reaction takes place in the bulk, the equations
899: satisfied by $\X$ and $\XP$ in the bulk (Eq.~\pref{eq:pde:stationary})
900: reduce to
901: \begin{equation}
902: \label{eq:DE_int}
903: -\al^{-2}\ad D\, \XP'' = -\al^{-2}\ad D\, \X'' = 0, \qquad 0<\xi<L.
904: \end{equation}
905: Note that the spatial variable is $\xi$, as discussed above;
906: the physical variable $x$ is given by $x=\al\xi$.
907:
908: For the kinase and phosphatase reactions we assume the rate
909: functions
910: \[
911: \ak k_k (\kk\X-\XP) \qquad \text{and}\qquad \ap k_p (\XP-\kp\X).
912: \]
913: Note the dimensionality of $k_{k,p}$: the rate functions are
914: surface fluxes, but $\XP$ and $\X$ are bulk concentrations;
915: $k_k$ and $k_p$ therefore have dimension length/time.
916: The coefficients $\alpha_{k,p}$ and $\kappa_{k,p}$ are dimensionless.
917:
918: The kinase and phosphatase reactions both enter the
919: description as boundary conditions (cf.~\pref{eq:bc_open_XT}):
920: \begin{alignat}2
921: \begin{aligned}
922: \al^{-1}\ad D\,\XP' &= \ap k_p (\XP-\kp\X) \\
923: \al^{-1}\ad D\,\X' &= - \ap k_p (\XP-\kp\X)
924: \end{aligned}
925: & \qquad && \text{at $\xi=0$ (phosphatase)}
926: \label{eq:bc_0}
927: \\[5pt]
928: \begin{aligned}
929: -\al^{-1}\ad D\,\XP' &= -\ak k_k (\kk\X-\XP) \\
930: -\al^{-1}\ad D\,\X' &= \ak k_k (\kk\X-\XP)
931: \end{aligned}
932: & \qquad && \text{at $\xi=L$ (kinase)}
933: \label{eq:bc_L}
934: \end{alignat}
935:
936: Equation~\pref{eq:DE_int} implies that the spatial gradients
937: of $\XP$ and $\X$ (i.e.~$\XP'$ and~$\X'$) are constant in $\xi$;
938: let us set $\delta = \XP'$.
939: From the solution of equations~(\ref{eq:DE_int}--\ref{eq:bc_L})
940: the relevant information for our purposes is $\delta$:
941: \begin{equation}
942: \label{def:delta}
943: \delta = \frac{M(\beta_p\ak\kk-\beta_k\ap\kp)}
944: {\al^{-1}\ad D(\beta_k+\beta_p) + L\beta_k\beta_p}.
945: \end{equation}
946: Here $M$ is the total concentration $\X+\XP$, which is independent of
947: $\xi$ by Eq.~\pref{eq:DE_int}, and
948: \[
949: \beta_k = \ak k_k(1+\kk) \qquad \text{and} \qquad
950: \beta_p = \ap k_p(1+\kp).
951: \]
952:
953: Because of the spatial separation of the reactions
954: the flux as defined by Eq.~\pref{def:J} equals the diffusive
955: flux,
956: \begin{equation}
957: \label{eq:flux_delta}
958: J = -\al^{-1} \ad D\, \XP' = -\al^{-1}\ad D\, \delta.
959: \end{equation}
960: From Eqs.~\pref{def:delta} and~\pref{eq:flux_delta} we can determine
961: the control coefficients of the flux with respect to
962: the kinase and phosphatase reactions and to diffusion, as well as the
963: `length'-control coefficient:%
964: \footnote{Note that
965: these formulas contain no $\alpha$'s, since they result from evaluation at
966: $\al=\ad=\ak=\ap=1$; consequently, $\beta_{k,p} = k_{k,p}(1+\kappa_{k,p})$.}
967: \begin{align*}
968: C^J_k &= \frac{D\beta_p}{D(\beta_k+\beta_p) + L\beta_k\beta_p},\\
969: C^J_p &= \frac{D\beta_k}{D(\beta_k+\beta_p) + L\beta_k\beta_p},\\
970: C^J_D &= \frac{L\beta_k\beta_p}{D(\beta_k+\beta_p) + L\beta_k\beta_p},\\
971: C^J_L &= -\frac{L\beta_k\beta_p}{D(\beta_k+\beta_p) + L\beta_k\beta_p}.
972: \end{align*}
973: Clearly these expressions satisfy the
974: summation theorems Eqs.~\pref{th:1} and~\pref{th:2_j}:
975: \begin{align*}
976: &C^J_D + C^J_k + C^J_p = 1,\\
977: &2C^J_D + C^J_k + C^J_p + C^J_L = 1.
978: \end{align*}
979: Note that both the kinase and the phosphatase
980: reaction are boundary effects, and therefore give rise to
981: boundary control coefficients $C^J_{f_i}$ of Eqs.~\pref{th:1} and~\pref{th:2_j}.
982:
983: For concentration control we choose to consider not a pointwise
984: concentration, but the difference between concentrations at
985: opposite ends:
986: \[
987: \XP(L)- \XP(0) = L\delta.
988: \]
989: Denoting the control coefficients with respect to this
990: quantity as $C^c$, we have
991: \begin{align*}
992: C^c_k &= \frac{D\beta_p}{D(\beta_k+\beta_p) + L\beta_k\beta_p},\\
993: C^c_p &= \frac{D\beta_k}{D(\beta_k+\beta_p) + L\beta_k\beta_p},\\
994: C^c_D &= -\frac{D(\beta_k+\beta_p)}{D(\beta_k+\beta_p) + L\beta_k\beta_p},\\
995: C^c_L &= \frac{D(\beta_k+\beta_p)}{D(\beta_k+\beta_p) + L\beta_k\beta_p}.
996: \end{align*}
997:
998: An example of the values of these control coefficients is given in
999: Figure~\ref{fig:ex_cc1}.
1000: \begin{figure}[ht]
1001: \centering
1002: \centerline{\psfig{figure=plotcase1,height=7cm}}
1003: \vskip5mm
1004: \caption{Values of control coefficients as a function
1005: of $L$ for the first example (parallel membranes at distance
1006: $L$, the kinase and phosphatase are localized at different membranes;
1007: $D = 1\,\mu m^2/s$, $k_p = k_k = 1/s$, $\kp = 0.1$, $\kk = 10$).}
1008: \label{fig:ex_cc1}
1009: \end{figure}
1010:
1011: \subsection{A spherical cell}
1012: For the second example we consider the same system as
1013: above, but now in a spherical cell of radius $L$.
1014: We assume spherical symmetry throughout.
1015:
1016: The kinase reaction is again localized at the membrane,
1017: and therefore results in a boundary condition
1018: \begin{equation}
1019: \begin{aligned}
1020: -\al^{-1}\ad D\,\XP' &= \ak k_k (\XP-\kk\X), \\
1021: -\al^{-1}\ad D\,\X' &= - \ak k_k (\XP-\kk\X),
1022: \end{aligned}
1023: \qquad \text{at $\xi=L$ (kinase).}
1024: \label{eq:bc_L2}
1025: \end{equation}
1026: The spatial variable is again $\xi$, but it now represents a \emph{radial}
1027: coordinate.
1028: The phosphatase reaction, which in this example is distributed
1029: throughout the bulk, now enters as a right-hand side in the differential
1030: equation for $\X$ and $\XP$ (cf.~\pref{eq:pde:stationary}):
1031: \[
1032: \begin{aligned}
1033: &{-\al^{-2}\ad D}\, \xi^{-2}(\xi^2\XP')' = -\ap k_p (\XP - \kp \X),\\
1034: &{-\al^{-2}\ad D}\, \xi^{-2}(\xi^2\X')' = \ap k_p (\XP - \kp \X),
1035: \end{aligned}
1036: \qquad 0< \xi< L.
1037: \]
1038: Again note the dimensions of $k_k$ and $k_p$: similar to the
1039: previous example, $k_k$ has dimension length/time; but here $k_p$ converts
1040: a bulk concentration into a bulk flux, and therefore $k_p$ has
1041: the (more familiar) dimension 1/time.
1042: As before, the total concentration is independent of $\xi$,
1043: and denoted by $M$:
1044: \begin{equation}
1045: \label{eq:M}
1046: M= \XP+\X
1047: \end{equation}
1048:
1049: As a first step we investigate different boundary conditions, where we
1050: prescribe the flux $J$:
1051: \begin{equation}
1052: \label{bc:prescribed_flux}
1053: -\al^{-1}\ad D\, \XP' = J = \al^{-1}\ad D\, \X',
1054: \end{equation}
1055: at $\xi=L$. For this choice of boundary conditions we can solve the
1056: system exactly. Set $u=\XP-\kp \X$; then $u$ satisfies the equation
1057: \[
1058: -\al^{-2}\ad D\, \xi^{-2}(\xi^2 u')' = -\ap k_p (1+\kp) u,
1059: \]
1060: with boundary condition
1061: \[
1062: -\al^{-1}\ad D\, u'(L) = (1+\kp)J.
1063: \]
1064: We find that $u$ is given by
1065: \begin{equation}
1066: \label{eq:sol_u}
1067: u(\xi) = -J\, \frac {1+\kp}{\al^{-1}\ad D} \;
1068: \frac {L^2}{\gamma L \cosh \gamma L - \sinh \gamma L}
1069: \, \frac {\sinh \gamma \xi}\xi,
1070: \end{equation}
1071: where the inverse length scale $\gamma$ is defined by
1072: \[
1073: \gamma^2 = \al^2 \, \frac{\ap k_p(1+\kp)}{\ad D}.
1074: \]
1075: It follows that
1076: \begin{equation}
1077: \label{def:c_i}
1078: \begin{aligned}
1079: \XP(\xi) &= \frac{\kp}{1+ \kp }\, M
1080: + \frac 1{1+\kp} \, u(\xi)\\
1081: \X(\xi) &= \frac1{1+\kp }\, M
1082: - \frac 1{1+\kp} \, u(\xi).
1083: \end{aligned}
1084: \end{equation}
1085:
1086:
1087: To return to the boundary
1088: conditions~\pref{eq:bc_L2} we equate the
1089: flux $J$ in Eq.~\pref{bc:prescribed_flux} with the right-hand side
1090: of Eq.~\pref{eq:bc_L2}:
1091: \[
1092: J = \ak k_k (\XP(L) - \kk \X(L)) =
1093: \ak k_k \left (\frac{1+\kk}{1+\kp}\,u(L)
1094: + \frac{\kp-\kk}{1+\kp} \, M\right);
1095: \]
1096: using the expression~\pref{eq:sol_u} for $u$ this yields
1097: \begin{equation}
1098: \label{eq:sol_J}
1099: J = \frac{\nu}{1+\beta} ,\qquad
1100: \nu = \ak k_k M \, \frac{\kp-\kk}{1+\kp}, \qquad
1101: \beta = \ak k_k \,\frac{1+ \kk}{\al^{-1}\ad D} \;
1102: \frac L {\gamma L \coth \gamma L - 1}
1103: \end{equation}
1104: ($\coth x$ is the hyperbolic cotangent,
1105: $\cosh x/\sinh x$).
1106: \drop{
1107: It follows from Eq.~\pref{eq:sol_J}
1108: that
1109: \[
1110: 1 + \beta = \frac {\nu M} {\XP(L) - \kk \X(L)}.
1111: \]
1112: }
1113:
1114: %Remark that this expression for $J$ gives explicit
1115: %formulas for the control of the various parameters on the flux:
1116: As in the previous example we thus obtain explicit
1117: formulas for the control of the various parameters on the flux:
1118: \begin{align*}
1119: C_{k}^J &= \frac1{1+\beta} \\
1120: C_{D}^J &= \frac12 \, \frac{\beta}{1+\beta} \,
1121: \frac{ \gamma L \coth \gamma L -2 + \gamma^2 L^2(\coth^2\gamma L-1)}%
1122: {\gamma L\coth \gamma L - 1} \\
1123: C_p^J &= \frac12 \, \frac{\beta}{1+\beta}
1124: \, \frac{\gamma L \coth \gamma L - \gamma^2 L^2(\coth^2\gamma L-1)}%
1125: {\gamma L \coth \gamma L - 1} \\
1126: C_L^J &= \frac{\beta}{1+\beta}
1127: \, \frac{1 - \gamma^2 L^2(\coth^2\gamma L-1)}%
1128: {\gamma L \coth \gamma L - 1} \\
1129: \end{align*}
1130:
1131: As an example of the concentration control values we choose
1132: a point at distance $L/2$ from the center of the cell. Denoting
1133: the control coefficients with respect to this quantity as
1134: $C^c$, we calculate
1135: \begin{align*}
1136: C_{k}^c &= \mu C^J_k \\
1137: C_{D}^c &= \mu \left(C^J_D + \frac12 \phi -1\right)\\
1138: C_p^c &= \mu \left(C^J_p - \frac12 \phi \right)\\
1139: C_L^c &= \mu \left(C^J_L - \phi +1 \right)
1140: \end{align*}
1141: Here
1142: \[
1143: \mu = \frac{u(L/2)}{\kp M + u(L/2)} \qquad \text{and}
1144: \qquad \phi = \frac{\gamma^2 L^2}{\gamma L \coth \gamma L - 1}
1145: -\frac{\gamma L}2 \coth \left(\frac{\gamma L}2\right).
1146: \]
1147:
1148: An example of the values of these control coefficients is given
1149: in Figure~\ref{fig:ex_cc2}.
1150:
1151: \begin{figure}[ht]
1152: \centering
1153: \centerline{\psfig{figure=plotcase2,height=7cm}}
1154: \vskip5mm
1155: \caption{Values of control coefficients as a function
1156: of $L$ for the second example (a spherical cell with a kinase on the membrane
1157: and a phosphatase in the cytosol;
1158: $D = 1\,\mu m^2/s$, $k_p = k_k = 1/s$, $\kp = 0.1$, $\kk = 10$).
1159: $C^c$ denotes control of the concentration measured halfway between the center and the membrane. }
1160: \label{fig:ex_cc2}
1161: \end{figure}
1162:
1163:
1164: \section{Discussion}
1165:
1166: Until fairly recently, biochemistry focused more on the time dependent
1167: aspects of processes than on the spatial aspects. Exceptions were the
1168: membrane-mediated subcompartmentation of cellular metabolism. The
1169: cellular subcompartments were mostly considered to be homogeneous in
1170: terms of concentrations and the heterogeneity between them was
1171: analyzed in terms of the activity of transport catalysts in the
1172: membranes~\cite{WesterhoffVanDam87}.
1173: Inhomogeneity of metabolites and even ions within
1174: aqueous subcompartments has often been proposed~\cite{Kell79}
1175: but calculations
1176: have shown that at least for central metabolic routes aqueous
1177: diffusion should be fast on the time scale of the catalytic turnover
1178: of the enzymes also given the proximity of the enzyme molecules due to
1179: the small sizes of cells~\cite{WesterhoffVanDam87,WesterhoffWelch92}.
1180: Metabolic Control Analysis was
1181: developed from this perspective and proved a useful way to rationalize
1182: the
1183: study of regulation and control of intermediary metabolism~\cite{Fell97} and
1184: free-energy transduction~\cite{WesterhoffVanDam87}.
1185: More than an analysis procedure,
1186: Metabolic Control Analysis also provided biochemists with a set of
1187: laws (theorems) that govern control of fluxes and concentrations in
1188: metabolic networks. One type of these were the summation theorems,
1189: stating that the sum of the control by all the individual enzyme
1190: catalyzed reactions on flux and
1191: concentration~\cite{KacserBurns73,HeinrichRapoport73}, oscillation
1192: amplitude~\cite{KholodenkoDeminWesterhoff97} or relaxation time
1193: constant~\cite{HeinrichReder91}
1194: should equal 1, 0, 1, and 1 respectively.
1195:
1196: Those were the days where biochemistry focused on metabolism. However, only a
1197: minor fraction of the known genomes encodes primary metabolism. Much
1198: coding capacity is devoted to regulation, in part through signal
1199: transduction~\cite{Kell79,KholodenkoWesterhoffSchwaberCascante00}.
1200: Signal transduction has (i) the spatial aspect
1201: that many signals arrive at the cell's plasma membrane and have to be
1202: transferred to its nuclear DNA, (ii) the added complication that much
1203: of the signal is transferred by proteins in direct phosphoryl
1204: transfers, rather than with small molecules as messengers, and (iii)
1205: the feature that those proteins are often present at a thousand times
1206: lower concentrations than the usual metabolite. All these three
1207: features work in the direction that might make diffusion of the
1208: components limiting in signal transfer. Indeed, it was calculated
1209: that for realistic parameter
1210: values, concentration gradients in signal
1211: (defined as in~\cite{FranckePostmaWesterhoffBlomPeletierTA}) should
1212: arise~\cite{Fell80,BrownKholodenko99,KholodenkoBrownHoek00},
1213: which might even force the cell to take refuge to alternative
1214: mechanisms of movement of the signal proteins~\cite{Kholodenko02}.
1215:
1216: With the realization of the possible importance of transport and
1217: diffusion for cell biochemistry, there came a need to update Metabolic
1218: Control Analysis so as to include the aspects of diffusion. This is
1219: what the first part of this paper accomplished for the summation
1220: theorem. The result was rather simple, to the sum of the enzyme control
1221: coefficients also coefficients for the control by the diffusion of the
1222: various species needed to be added, as well as control coefficients for
1223: the transport processes and for the non-enzyme-catalyzed chemical
1224: reactions, before it amounted to 1 for flux control and 0 for
1225: concentration control. This result is perhaps not surprising, but
1226: has been overlooked effectively in the literature for quite a while.
1227: In studies of the control of growth rate of \emph{E. coli} by the lactose
1228: permease,
1229: it was found that a sum of 1 could not be found and it
1230: was suspected that part of the control resided in diffusion across the
1231: outer membrane~\cite{JensenWesterhoffMichelsen93,DykhuizenDeanHartl87}.
1232: It was found that none of the glycolytic
1233: enzymes had significant control on the glycolytic flux in yeast. This
1234: was considered a problem until strong indications arose of
1235: substantial control in glucose transport into the
1236: cells~\cite{ReijengaSnoepDiderichVanVerseveldWesterhoffTeusink01}.
1237: Thus, if anything, our extension of the summation theorem to include
1238: the transport steps may open eyes to the possibility that
1239: transport controls metabolic fluxes. Similarly we should expect
1240: renewed attention to arise from the other term in our summation
1241: theorem, i.e.\ the one that refers to control by the diffusion. Of
1242: course the novelty lies not so much in the possibility of such
1243: control, but in the
1244: fact that it may account for a shortfall of metabolic control from
1245: the total of~1.
1246:
1247: We have also formulated the summation theorem for the case of
1248: inhomogeneity in both time and space, i.e.\ where a spatial gradient
1249: may be developing over time. In that case diffusion and time
1250: turn out to share in the total flux control of~1. In the case of
1251: homogeneity in time (i.e.\ at steady state), the former contribution
1252: disappears, in case of spatial homogeneity the latter. The
1253: experimental system that springs to mind is that of
1254: Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactions exhibiting time varying
1255: spirals~\cite{ZhabotinskyZaikin73}, but
1256: closer to biology the wave type oscillations in yeast extracts~\cite{MairWarnkeMuller01}.
1257: The most relevant application may be in developmental biology, but for
1258: this an extension to Hierarchical Control
1259: Analysis~\cite{SnoepVanderWeijdenAndersenWesterhoffJensen02} will be
1260: needed.
1261:
1262: \bigskip
1263: While the first flux summation result, Eq.~\pref{th:1}, and
1264: the first concentration summation result, Eq.~\pref{th:1b}, are
1265: a simple extension of existing theory, the summation theorems
1266: concerning changes of spatial scale (Eqs.~\pref{th:2_c},
1267: \pref{th:2_j}, and~\pref{th:2a}) are fundamentally new,
1268: and introduce a concept that is new to Metabolic Control Analysis:
1269: control by size.
1270:
1271:
1272: \medskip
1273:
1274: `Control by the size', the quantity measured by $C_L$,
1275: is a concept with some interesting properties.
1276: For instance, $C^J_L$ and $C^c_L$ can be both positive and negative.
1277: This is related to the fact that the size of a system can
1278: influence the `productive' capacity of the system in
1279: different ways at the same time. Let us examine this for flux control:
1280: \begin{itemize}
1281: \item Size can be an obstacle: if material has to travel over a distance $L$,
1282: as in the example of parallel
1283: membranes (Case 1 of Section~\ref{sec:ex}),
1284: then an increase in~$L$ implies a decrease of the (average) concentration gradient,
1285: and therefore causes a reduction
1286: in diffusive flux. This is the dominant effect in the large-$L$ limit
1287: of Case 1, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ex_cc1}, where it leads to a limit value
1288: of $C^J_L$ of $-1$.
1289: \item On the other hand, size can also be
1290: a resource: if a reaction takes place in a bulk region
1291: of linear size $L$, then $L$ is also a measure of
1292: reactive capacity: an increase in size will result in
1293: an increase of total reactive flux. This is demonstrated by the second
1294: example, where the input- and output boundaries are co-located and
1295: no material is forced to travel over a distance $L$.
1296: Here the control by size is positive, and in the limit of small
1297: $L$ the control even approaches $1$.
1298: \end{itemize}
1299:
1300:
1301: \drop{
1302: Turning to the summation theorems,
1303: the number two that appears in Eqs.~\pref{th:2_c},
1304: \pref{th:2_j}, and~\pref{th:2a} is
1305: remarkable. If $C^J_{f_i }$
1306: and $C^J_L$ are positive, then it follows that
1307: the diffusion control on the flux is
1308: bounded between $0$ and $1/2$, rather than by the
1309: more familiar bounds $0$ and $1$. In fact,
1310: in the limit of large $\afi $ and $L$---in
1311: which case both the membrane
1312: transport and the domain size have negligeable control---one finds
1313: \[
1314: \sum_{i=1}^n C^J_{D_i} = \frac12.
1315: \]
1316: This has also been found in recent numerical
1317: studies~\cite{FranckePostmaWesterhoffBlomPeletierTA}.
1318:
1319: Secondly, the proof of Eq.~\pref{th:2a} also shows how
1320: changing the diffusion rate alters the structure of the solutions.
1321: By increasing the diffusion rate we increase the width of the
1322: `boundary layer', in which
1323: a significant part of the reactions takes place. As a result
1324: the flux is also increased. Note, however, that the relative increase in
1325: size of the boundary layer (which scales as $\lambda$, since
1326: $x = \al \xi = \lambda \xi$) is the square root of the increase
1327: of the diffusion coefficients ($\adi = \lambda^2$).
1328: This can be explained intuitively as follows.
1329: The size of the boundary layer is
1330: determined by counteracting forces; a thin boundary layer
1331: provides for fast spatial transport (on the scale of the layer
1332: thickness), but little reactive
1333: capacity, while for a thick layer the situation is inversed.
1334: An increase in diffusion rate is therefore used partially
1335: to increase transport rate, and partially to increase
1336: reaction capacity. The number $1/2$ is the result of
1337: this trade-off.
1338: }
1339:
1340: The new summation theorems have a number of interesting implications.
1341: Perhaps the most striking one is that they impose an upper limit to
1342: the control that diffusion may have on the flux through the system. The
1343: first summation theorem suggested that this number be 1, i.e.\ if the
1344: biochemical and the transport processes were in excess and the system
1345: were large; the second, however, shows that it is only $1/2$
1346: whenever the control by size is positive (i.e.\ when increasing the size
1347: results in a higer flux). Clearly, in such cases there must always
1348: be another process
1349: controlling flux, in addition to diffusion.
1350: In the example of Fig.~\ref{fig:ex_cc2}
1351: the other processes were the biochemical reactions.
1352:
1353: The example of Figure~\ref{fig:scaling_c} also shows how
1354: changing the diffusion rate alters the concentration profiles.
1355: By increasing the diffusion rate we increase the width of a
1356: `boundary layer', in which
1357: a significant part of the reactions takes place. As a result
1358: the flux is also increased. Note, however, that the relative increase in
1359: size of the boundary layer (which scales as $\lambda$, since
1360: $x = \al \xi = \lambda \xi$) is the square root of the increase
1361: of the diffusion coefficients ($\adi = \lambda^2$).
1362: This can be explained intuitively as follows.
1363: The size of the boundary layer is
1364: determined by counteracting forces; a thin boundary layer
1365: provides for fast spatial transport (on the scale of the layer
1366: thickness), but little reactive
1367: capacity, while for a thick layer the situation is inversed.
1368: An increase in diffusion rate is therefore used partially
1369: to increase transport rate, and partially to increase
1370: reaction capacity. The number $1/2$ is the result of
1371: this trade-off.
1372:
1373: \drop{
1374: The new summation theorem has the interesting implication that in the
1375: limit of large systems and the absence of control by diffusion, the
1376: control by transport should be equal to 1, reducing the control by
1377: reactions to zero.\footnote{We need to be more specific here, otherwise
1378: the claim is untrue. Are you thinking of a system with in- and output
1379: on the same side (as in the example of Fig. 3)? In that case
1380: in the limit of large systems diffusion and reaction have equal control
1381: (which can vary between 0 and 1/2, depending on the coefficients;
1382: the other control is by transport). You can see this
1383: equal control in Fig. 3. I'm not quite sure which situation
1384: you're thinking of. Can you fill in?} This reflects the phenomenon that in the size
1385: increase operation, the chemical reaction in the bulk aqueous phase
1386: are kept at constant activities per unit volume, whereas the reactions
1387: in the membrane are kept at contant activities per unit surface
1388: area. Consequently, the latter become limiting at large cell sizes.
1389:
1390: Combination of the two theorems, Eqs.~\pref{th:1} and~\pref{th:2_j}
1391: also leads to intriguing implications,
1392: i.e.\ by subtracting one finds:
1393: \[
1394: \sum_{i=1}^n C^J_{D_i} + C^J_L = \sum_{j=1}^m C^J_{v_j}
1395: \]
1396: which for large systems confirms the above contention that the
1397: diffusion control becomes equal to the reaction control.
1398: By subtracting the old summation theorem twice from the new theorem, one
1399: eliminates diffusion control:
1400: \[
1401: 2\sum_{j=1}^m C^J_{v_j} - \sum_{i=1}^nC^J_{f_i} + C^J_L = 1,
1402: \]
1403: which states that the size of the system exerts flux control that is
1404: related unequally to the reactive and the transport control.
1405: }
1406:
1407:
1408:
1409: \drop{
1410: It has however been a point of interest in microbiology, in
1411: qualitative terms for a number of years [33, 34, 35Koch, Neidhart,
1412: Kooimans]\footnote{Can you give me some more info?}.
1413: A common thought in microbiology is that microorganism are
1414: as small as they are because larger cells would imply smaller surface
1415: to volume ratios and make transport or diffusion limiting. This might
1416: seem to imply that above a certain size, the size should have strong,
1417: negative control on the fluxes. This is not what we find in our
1418: example (Fig. 3). The control by cell size appears to decrease at the
1419: larger cell sizes, but is always positive, implying that an increase
1420: in cell size should always be beneficial for growth rate (which is a
1421: flux after all).
1422: At the larger cell size one does see that diffusion
1423: becomes limiting. The resolution of this paradox is to compare with
1424: the alternative, which is that the cell divides into two cells rather
1425: than becoming twice as large. In the division scenario, the flux will
1426: be directly proportional to the number of cells (hence to the cubic
1427: root of L (approximately)). Accordingly, the control of L on growth
1428: rate should be approximately equal to 0.33 (in fact in between 0.5 and
1429: 0.33) in that scenario. This implies that in our Fig. 3, it should
1430: become better to stop increasing size and undergo division for cells
1431: that are approximately 2 micron in diameter. Since the parameters
1432: used to obtain Fig. 3 are not necessarily realistic\footnote{How about
1433: sticking in realistic numbers? Can either of you give me suggestions?}, the fact that
1434: this is close to the size of a yeast cell may suggest more than that
1435: it proves, but it is an invitation to experimentation.
1436: }
1437:
1438:
1439: \noindent\textsc{Acknowledgement}
1440: \par\penalty1000
1441: \noindent
1442: This work was supported by the RTN network
1443: `Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations describing Front
1444: Propagation and other Singular Phenomena',
1445: HPRN-CT-2002-00274, and by the National Institute of Health through Grant
1446: GM59570.
1447:
1448: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
1449: \newpage
1450: \bibliographystyle{bphj}
1451: \bibliography{ref}
1452: \end{document}
1453:
1454: