1: \documentclass[aps,pre,preprint,groupedaddress,showkeys]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \preprint{}
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: % Title of paper
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: \title{Bifurcation analysis of a model of the budding yeast cell cycle}
10:
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: % Authors
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14:
15: \author{Dorjsuren Battogtokh}
16: \email{dbattogt@vt.edu, tel: 540-231-5508, fax: 540-231-9307}
17:
18: \author{John J. Tyson}
19: \affiliation{
20: Department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
21: Blacksburg, VA 24061
22: }
23:
24: %\date{\today}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: We study the bifurcations of a set of nine nonlinear ordinary differential
28: equations that describe the regulation of the cyclin-dependent kinase that
29: triggers DNA synthesis and mitosis in the budding yeast,
30: {\em Saccharomyces cerevisiae}. We show that Clb2-dependent kinase
31: exhibits bistability (stable steady states of high or low
32: kinase activity). The transition from low to high Clb2-dependent
33: kinase activity is driven by transient activation of Cln2-dependent kinase,
34: and the reverse transition is driven by transient activation of the Clb2
35: degradation machinery. We show that a four-variable model retains the main
36: features of the nine-variable model. In a three-variable
37: model exhibiting birhythmicity (two
38: stable oscillatory states), we explore possible effects of extrinsic
39: fluctuations on cell cycle progression.
40:
41: % insert abstract here
42: \end{abstract}
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
45: \pacs{}
46: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this
47: \keywords{regulatory networks, cellular control, fluctuations}
48:
49: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords
50: \maketitle
51:
52: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands
53: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands
54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
57: \section{Introduction}
58: The cell cycle is the sequence of events by which a growing cell
59: replicates all its components and divides them evenly between two
60: daughter cells \cite{Watson, Nurse, Murray}. Many theoreticians
61: have understood the cell cycle as a periodic process driven by
62: a biochemical limit cycle oscillator \cite{norel,obey,hatz}.
63: However, a growing body of
64: experimental and theoretical evidences indicates that the eukaryotic
65: cell cycle is a toggle switch between two stable steady states,
66: controlled by checkpoints \cite{Nasmyth,Kathy,Cross,JTbook,Sible}.
67: This point of view was adopted by Chen et al. \cite{Kathy} in
68: a recent mathematical model of the budding yeast cell cycle, and
69: bistability in the yeast cell cycle control system has been
70: confirmed
71: recently by experiments from Cross's laboratory \cite{Cross}.
72:
73: Bifurcation theory is a
74: mathematical tool for characterizing
75: steady state and oscillatory solutions of a system of
76: nonlinear differential equations (ODE's) \cite{Kuznetsov,Strogatz}.
77: The goal of this work is a detailed bifurcation analysis of
78: Chen's model. Our bifurcation analysis supplements the numerical simulation
79: carried out by Chen et al. and clarifies their quantitative comparisons
80: between experiment and theory \cite{Cross}. In addition, bifurcation theory
81: helps us to identify control modules within Chen's complicated model,
82: thereby bringing some new insights to the yeast cell cycle control
83: mechanism. A more through understanding
84: of cell cycle control in yeast can be very helpful in future efforts to
85: model mammalian cell cycle controls \cite{kohn}.
86:
87: This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we give a brief
88: introduction to the budding yeast cell cycle. In Section III, we
89: introduce Chen's model and present its one-parameter bifurcation diagram.
90: In Section IV, we study saddle node bifurcations in Chen's model in order
91: to provide a rigorous foundation for interpreting Cross's experiment on
92: bistability of the control system \cite{Cross}. In Section V,
93: we propose a reduced model with
94: four time-dependent variables, which retains the main dynamical characteristics
95: of the extended model. We characterize this model
96: using two-parameter bifurcation diagrams.
97: In Section VI, we further reduce Chen's model to
98: three variables and
99: demonstrate that the abbreviated model displays bifurcations and birhythmicity
100: similar to more complex models {\cite{Borisuk,JTbook,Chaos}.
101: In Section VII, we use the three-variable model to study effects of
102: extrinsic fluctuations.
103: The closing section is devoted to discussion. The nine-variable
104: mathematical model and its parameters are given in the Appendix.
105:
106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
109: \section{A Brief introduction to the budding yeast cell cycle}
110:
111: {\em Cell cycle phases.} The cell cycle is the process by
112: which one cell becomes two. The most important events in the
113: cell cycle are replication of the cell's DNA and separation of
114: the replicated DNA molecules to the daughter cells. In eukaryotic
115: cells, these events (replication and separation) occur in temporarily
116: distinct stages (S phase and M phase, respectively). S and M phase are
117: separated in time by gaps called G1 and G2 phases.
118:
119: During S phase (``synthesis"), double-stranded DNA molecules are
120: replicated to produce pairs of sister chromatids. During
121: M phase (``mitosis"), sister chromatids are separated
122: so that each daughter cell receives a copy of each chromosome.
123: The G1 checkpoint mechanism controls the initiation of S phase,
124: and a G2 checkpoint mechanism controls entry in M phase.
125: A mitotic checkpoint controls the transition from M phase back to G1
126: phase. The checkpoints monitor cell size, DNA damage and repair,
127: DNA replication, and chromosome alignment on the mitotic spindle.
128:
129: {\em Molecular controls of budding yeast cell cycle.}
130: Based on current knowledge
131: about the molecular components controlling progression through the
132: budding yeast cell cycle, a molecular wiring diagram was proposed by
133: Chen et al. \cite{Kathy}. A slightly simplified version of their
134: diagram is presented in Figure 1. The molecular components can be divided
135: into four groups: cyclins, inhibitors, transcription factors,
136: and proteolytic machinery.
137:
138: There are two families of cyclins in Figure 1: Cln's and Clb's
139: \footnote{we adopted following notations:
140: {\em ABC} denotes a gene, ABC implies a protein, and [ABC]
141: denotes a concentration for protein ABC.}. These
142: cyclins combine with kinase subunits (Cdc28) to form active
143: cyclin-dependent kinase heterodimers that trigger cell cycle events
144: (Cdc28/Cln2 initiates budding, Cdc28/Clb5 initiates DNA synthesis,
145: Cdc28/Clb2 initiates mitosis).
146: Cdc28 subunits are in constant, high abundance throughout cell
147: cycle; hence, the activity of Cdc28/cyclin heterodimers is controlled
148: by the availability of cyclin subunits. For this reason, Cdc28 is not shown
149: in Figure 1; only the cyclin subunits are specified. (Each cyclin
150: molecule is understood to have a Cdc28 partner.)
151:
152: Sic1 (in Figure 1) is a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor: it binds
153: to Cdc28/Clb dimers to form inactive trimers (Cdc28/Clb/Sic1).
154: Sic1 does not bind to or inhibit Cdc28/Cln dimers.
155:
156: Mcm1, MBF, SBF and Swi5 are transcription factors for synthesis of Clb2,
157: Clb5, Cln2 and Sic1, respectively.
158:
159: The degradation of these proteins is regulated by a ubiquitination pathway.
160: Proteins destined for degradation are first labeled by attachment of multiple
161: ubiquitin molecules. Ubiquitin moieties are attached to Clb2 and Clb5 by the APC
162: (anaphase promoting complex) in conjunction with either Cdc20 or Hct1.
163: Sic1 is ubiquitinated by a different mechanism(the ``SCF"),
164: which (unlike the APC) requires that its substrates be phosphorylated.
165:
166: Budding yeast cells progress through the division cycle as the levels of the species
167: in Figure 1 come and go. Thus the problem of cell cycle control is
168: to understand the temporal fluctuations of these species.
169: Because the species in Figure 1 are directly or indirectly
170: interacting with all other species, simultaneous determination of their
171: fluctuating concentrations require a precise mathematical model.
172: Using mass action and Michaelis-Menten rate laws, the complex wiring diagram in
173: Figure 1 can be converted into ordinary differential equations, and
174: from them the molecular levels can be computed \cite{Kathy}.
175:
176:
177: \section{A Bifurcation diagram of Chen's model}
178: The model proposed by Chen et al. \cite{Kathy}
179: includes about a dozen ODE's
180: and eleven algebraic equations with more than $50$ parameters.
181: (Refer to \cite{Kathy} for a complete description of
182: the wiring diagram and a derivation of the mathematical model,
183: as well as for estimates of the rate constants in the model.)
184:
185: In the appendix we present a reduced version of Chen's model
186: to be used in this paper for bifurcation analysis. From the original model,
187: we drop the target variables (spindle and bud formation,
188: and DNA synthesis) because they are decoupled from the rest
189: of the model. We reserve mass as the principal bifurcation parameter.
190: We use the same parameter values as Ref. \cite{Kathy}, and they are presented
191: in the appendix, Table I.
192:
193: Using the software package AUTO \cite {Doedel},
194: we created a one-parameter bifurcation diagram (Figure 2)
195: of the budding yeast cell cycle model, Eqn. (A1-A20),
196: for parameter values given in Table I.
197: Two saddle node bifurcations, at $M\approx 0.97$ and $M \approx 0.6$,
198: connect the stable steady
199: states in Figure 2. There is also a subcritical Hopf bifurcation
200: on the upper branch of steady states at $M \approx 0.82$ from
201: which a branch of unstable limit cycles originates. These unstable
202: oscillations disappear at an infinite-period saddle loop (SL) bifurcation
203: near $M \approx 0.73$. A second branch of
204: limit cycle oscillations, shown by filled circles that
205: disappear at a different SL bifurcation point
206: ($M \approx 0.78$), are stable.
207:
208: The stable steady states (solid line) at values of [Clb2]$ < 10^{-3}$
209: represent the G1 phase of the cell cycle. The stable oscillatory states
210: (filled circles) represent autonomous progression through S, G2 and
211: M phases of the cell cycle and then back into S phase.
212:
213: To get a full picture of cell cycle events, we must combine the
214: dynamics of the cyclin-dependent kinase ``engine" (as summarized in Figure 2)
215: with equations for cell growth and division (changes in cell mass, $M$).
216: To this end, we supplemented Eqn. (A1-A20) with an equation for mass growth,
217: $M(t)=M(0) e^{\mu t}$, or, in differential form, $\dot{M}=\mu M$, and a
218: rule for cell division ($M$ reset to $f M$ whenever Clb2-dependent kinase
219: activity drops below 0.005). Following Chen et al. \cite{Kathy}
220: we choose $f=0.0043$ because budding yeast cells divide asymmetrically.
221:
222: With these changes, we compute a solution of the full system, Eqn. (A1-A20)
223: plus the dynamics of $M$, and plot the resulting ``trajectory of motion"
224: on the bifurcation diagram (the red line in Figure 2).
225: This trajectory shows that
226: the control system stays in the G1 phase if $M < 0.97$.
227: As $M$ increases further, the control system is captured by the stable
228: limit cycle. As a result, ${\rm [Clb2]_T}$ increases abruptly,
229: driving the cell through S phase into M phase, then ${\rm [Clb2]_T}$
230: drops below 0.005, causing the cell to divide and the control system
231: to return to the stable G1 state.
232:
233: This bifurcation diagram of the Chen et al. model exhibits the same
234: features of cell cycle models of frog eggs \cite{Borisuk}
235: and fission yeast \cite{Chaos}, namely, saddle node bifurcations
236: associated with stable and unstable oscillations. Yet,
237: there are subtle differences in these bifurcation diagrams.
238: In the frog egg and fission yeast models, the large amplitude stable
239: limit cycles end at a saddle-node invariant-circle (SNIC) bifurcation,
240: not a SL bifurcation. In our case stable oscillations coexist
241: with the stable steady states over a small range of mass values
242: ($0.78 <M<0.95$). However, when the budding yeast cell cycle
243: model is supplemented by the mass growth equation, such differences
244: seem unimportant.
245:
246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
247: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
249:
250: \section{Saddle-node bifurcations driven by Cln2 and Cdc20}
251:
252: Recently, Cross et al. \cite{Cross} experimentally
253: confirmed bistablity in activity of Clb2-dependent kinase
254: in budding yeast cells.
255: It is interesting to mention that this result was
256: predicted by a schematic sketch
257: (Figure 9 of Ref. \cite{Kathy}) intuitively drawn from
258: interrelations of Cdc28/Clb2 with the
259: G1 phase cyclin Cln2 and the APC specificity factor Cdc20.
260: We confirm this informal prediction of Chen et al.
261: by a rigorous bifurcation analysis of their model.
262:
263: In their experimental work, Cross et al. constructed a strain that under
264: different experimental conditions may lack activities of
265: Cln2 or Cdc20 or both. (To be precise,
266: Cross et al. used Cln3 in place of Cln2,
267: but that technical detail makes no difference to our analysis.)
268: By manipulating the activities of
269: Cln2 or Cdc20, they found that [Clb2] can
270: be either in high or low, depending on initial
271: conditions. In terms of bifurcation theory, they provided evidence
272: for an S shaped steady state curve bounded by saddle-node bifurcations,
273: with transitions driven by the activity of Cln2 or Cdc20.
274: Indeed, we found that Chen's model displays such
275: bifurcations when [Cln2] and [Cdc20] are considered as
276: bifurcation parameters.
277:
278: In accord with the experimental protocol of Cross et al.
279: \cite{Cross}, we consider [Cln2] and [Cdc20] as parameters,
280: and therefore discard
281: Eqn. (A1) and Eqn. (A4-A5) from Chen's model. We performed
282: bifurcation analysis for the remaining six ODE's.
283: In Figure 3, we show a combination of
284: two bifurcation diagrams. In the left bifurcation diagram
285: we set [Cln2]=0 and vary [Cdc20], whereas
286: in the right bifurcation diagram we set [Cdc20]=0 and vary [Cln2].
287: As mass is the same in both cases ($M=1$), the two stable steady states in
288: Figure 3 represent G1 phase (low Clb2-dependent kinase activity)
289: and S/G2/M phase (high Clb2-dependent kinase activity).
290: Figure 3 shows that increasing
291: [Cln2] drives the transition from G1 into S/G2/M,
292: while activation of [Cdc20] drives the transition from
293: S/G2/M back to G1.
294:
295: Using AUTO's facility for computing two-parameter bifurcation diagrams,
296: we extended the saddle-node bifurcations in Figure 3 into the parameter
297: planes spanned by ([Cln2],$M$), ([Cdc20],$M$), and ([Cln2],[Cdc20]).
298: In Figure 4a, there are multiple steady states inside the cusp-shaped region
299: bounded by the dashed lines, as expected \cite{Kuznetsov}. In Figure 4b,
300: there are two different bistable domains, bounded by dashed and dotted lines,
301: respectively. Where the domains overlap, we found that the control
302: system has five steady states. We found that two
303: different modules independently lead to the bistable domains in Figure 4b.
304: The dashed line curve is due to the Hct1 module of the wiring
305: diagram in Figure 1,
306: whereas the dotted line curve is due to the Sic1 module.
307: Finally, Figure 4c shows the bistable region on the ([Cln2],[Cdc20]) plane.
308:
309: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
311: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
312:
313: \section{Effects of transcriptional factors Mcm1 and
314: SBF in a reduced model with four ODE's}
315:
316: Because Eqn. (A1-A20) take into account many known details of cell
317: cycle control, the model is very complex. It is difficult to understand
318: from Eqn. (A1-A20) what are the nonlinearities leading to specific
319: features of the bifurcation diagram shown in Figure 2. To
320: overcome this difficulty, we simplify Chen's model,
321: by defining a core module that retains the main dynamical
322: features of the full set of equations. The
323: reduced model can be useful in understanding the roles
324: of nonlinear feedbacks in the control system.
325:
326: In Figure 5 we propose a simplified wiring diagram for the budding yeast
327: cell cycle. We discarded from the original wiring diagram the
328: Sic1 and the Clb5 modules and Cdc20's activation, retaining only
329: four ODE's.
330:
331: \begin{widetext}
332: \begin{eqnarray}
333: %%%Equation#1
334: \frac{d}{dt} [{\rm Cln2}] = M (k_{s,n2}'+k_{s,n2}''
335: [{\rm SBF}]) - k_{d,n2} [{\rm Cln2}],
336: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
337: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
338: %%%Equation#2
339: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Clb2}]=M (k_{s,b2}'+k_{s,b2}'' [{\rm Mcm1}] )
340: - ( k_{d,b2}'+(k_{d,b2}''-k_{d,b2}') [{\rm Hct1}]
341: +k_{d,b2}''' [{\rm Cdc20}]) [{\rm Clb2}],\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\
342: %%%Equation#3
343: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Hct1}]=\frac{(k_{a,t1}'+k_{a,t1}''
344: [{\rm Cdc20}])(1-[{\rm Hct1}])}{J_{a,t1}+1-[{\rm Hct1}]}-\frac{V_{i,t1}
345: [{\rm Hct1}]}{J_{i,t1}+[{\rm Hct1}]}, \: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
346: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
347: %%%Equation#4
348: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Cdc20}]=(k_{s,20}'+k_{s,20}'' [{\rm Clb2}])
349: -k_{d,20}' [{\rm Cdc20}],\
350: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
351: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \; \\
352: \nonumber
353: \end{eqnarray}
354: \end{widetext}
355: where [SBF] is given by Eqn. (A13-A14) with [Clb5]=0. [Mcm1]
356: is given by Eqn. (A11), and $V_{i,t1}$ is given by Eqn. (A15).
357: With the elimination of the dynamics for Cdc20 activation,
358: we define a new parameter in Eqn. (4)
359: $k_{d,20}'=\frac{k_{d,20} k_{a,20}}{k_{a,20}+V_{i,20}+k_{d,20}}$. We note
360: that the results in this section do not change if $k_{d,20}'=k_{d,20}$.
361:
362: Although Figure 5 is much simpler
363: than Figure 1, Eqn. (1-4) are still quite complex. The most uncertainties
364: arise from the two transcription factors(SBF and Mcm1), which are
365: described by nonlinear Goldbeter-Koshland functions
366: \cite{Goldbeter,Koshland}. Their role
367: is to switch solutions from one branch to another.
368: As the effects of the transcription factors
369: can be studied experimentally,
370: we explore their roles
371: via two-parameter bifurcation diagrams.
372: First, by using mass as the primary bifurcation parameter, we computed
373: a one-parameter bifurcation diagram similar to
374: Figure 2. Then, we continued the codimension-one bifurcations
375: into two parameter domains, using
376: the intensity coefficients of the transcription factors, $k_{s,n2}''$
377: and $k_{s,b2}''$, as the secondary bifurcation parameters.
378:
379: Figure 6a shows a two-parameter bifurcation diagram of Eqn. (1-4) on the
380: $(M,k_{s,n2}'')$ plane. Saddle-node bifurcations appear in Figure 6a
381: only if $k_{s,n2}''> 0$. A bistable domain is inside the dashed
382: lines. It widens at smaller mass and larger $k_{s,n2}''$.
383: The dot-dashed line showing
384: Hopf bifurcation points continues inside the bistable domain.
385: At $M >0.8$, the Hopf bifurcation line is accompanied by a
386: cyclic fold curve. These curves eventually
387: coalesce at a larger mass value. Inside the bistable domain the cyclic fold
388: coalesces with a locus of saddle loops (solid line in Figure 6a).
389:
390: Figure 6b shows a two-parameter bifurcation diagram on the $(M,k_{s,b2})$
391: plane. A crucial difference between Figure 6a and Figure 6b is
392: the existence of a bistable domain at $k_{s,b2}''=0$. If
393: $k_{s,b2}''<0.04$, the effect of [Mcm1] regulation is negligible.
394: But if $k_{s,b2}''>0.5$, [Mcm1] can destroy bistability. In Figure 6b
395: a Hopf bifurcation line originates from a Bogdanov-Takens
396: bifurcation. This line is accompanied by a line of saddle loops.
397: The saddle loops
398: change stability where the line of cyclic folds coalesces with the line of
399: saddle loops.
400:
401: We found that Eqn. (A1-A20) display two-parameter
402: bifurcation diagrams similar to Figure 6a-b.
403: Notice from Figure 6b that the domain of bistability is quite
404: independent of the activity of Mcm1, but the existence of the primary
405: Hopf bifurcation in the model is sensitively dependent on the activity of Mcm1.
406: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
408: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
409:
410: \section{A SNIC bifurcation in
411: a reduced model with three ODE's}
412:
413: The eukaryotic
414: cell cycle engine is a highly conserved molecular machine.
415: It is expected that mathematical models of cell cycle controls in
416: different organisms exhibit qualitatively similar dynamics as revealed by
417: similar bifurcation diagrams. But there can be also peculiarities in
418: these models, subject to particular parameter selections.
419: As we mentioned in Section 3, the bifurcation diagram in Figure 2
420: does not involve a SNIC bifurcation, as seen in
421: bifurcation diagrams of mathematical models for
422: frog eggs and fission yeast \cite{Borisuk,Chaos,Hunding}.
423: Although this difference is rather subtle
424: and does not contradict any features of cell cycle physiology,
425: we point out that Chen's model Eqn. (A1-A20)
426: can display a SNIC bifurcation for appropriate choice of parameter
427: values (not shown). In this section, we examine SNIC bifurcation in a three
428: variable model.
429:
430: To further simplify the model, we neglect Cln2 from
431: the wiring diagram in Figure 5.
432: As a result, we have a model with three time-dependent variables,
433:
434: \begin{widetext}
435: \begin{eqnarray}
436: %%%Equation#1
437: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Clb2}]=M (k_{s,b2}'+k_{s,b2}'' [{\rm Mcm1}] )
438: - ( k_{d,b2}'+(k_{d,b2}''-k_{d,b2}') [{\rm Hct1}]
439: +k_{d,b2}''' [{\rm Cdc20}]) [{\rm Clb2}],\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\
440: %%%Equation#3
441: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Hct1}]=\frac{(k_{a,t1}'+k_{a,t1}''
442: [{\rm Cdc20}])(1-[{\rm Hct1}])}{J_{a,t1}+1-[{\rm Hct1}]}-\frac{V_{i,t1}
443: [{\rm Hct1}]}{J_{i,t1}+[{\rm Hct1}]}, \: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
444: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
445: %%%Equation#4
446: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Cdc20}]=(k_{s,20}'+k_{s,20}'' [{\rm Clb2}])
447: -k_{d,20} [{\rm Cdc20}].\
448: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
449: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \; \\
450: \nonumber
451: \end{eqnarray}
452: \end{widetext}
453:
454: In Eqn.(5-7), [Mcm1] is given by Eqn. (A11), and
455: $V_{i,t1}$ is given by Eqn. (A15). We assume
456: ${\rm [Cln2]=0}$ and ${\rm [Clb5]} =\frac{k_{s,b5}' M}{k_{d,b5}'}$ in Eqn. (A15).
457: We also changed the values of some parameters in Table I, as $k_{s,b5}'=0.06$,
458: $k_{a,t1}''=1.5$, $k_{s,20}''=0.07$, $J_{a,mcm}=J_{i,mcm}=0.01$.
459:
460: Let $[{\rm Clb2} ]^0$, $[{\rm Hct1}]^0$ and ${[{\rm Cdc20}]}^0$
461: denote a steady state solution of Eqn. (5-7).
462: Clearly, ${[{\rm Cdc20}]}^0=\frac{(k_{s,20}'+k_{s,20}''
463: {[{\rm Clb2}]}^0)}{k_{d,20}}$. Substituting this functional relation
464: between [Cdc20] and [Clb2] into Eqn. (5-6), we can think of
465: ([Clb2],[Hct1]) as a two-variable system, susceptible to phase plane
466: analysis. The nullclines of the two variable systems are plotted in
467: Figure 7. From the intersections of these nullclines, we find steady
468: state solutions, $[{\rm Clb2} ]^0$ and $[{\rm Hct1}]^0$, and
469: consequently ${[{\rm Cdc20}]}^0$. Depending on
470: $M$, the number of intersections varies, but the
471: maximum number of steady states is three.
472:
473: We study stability of the steady states numerically. In Figure 8
474: we plot a bifurcation diagram of Eqn. (5-7), with $M$
475: as the principal bifurcation parameter. At
476: a given $M$, there can be one stable steady state and
477: two unstable steady states, or a single steady state which
478: can be either stable or unstable. The stable steady states
479: in Figure 8 can coexist
480: with stable limit cycle oscillations. There are two
481: interesting features in this bifurcation diagram: (i)
482: a SNIC bifurcation which arises at $M\approx 2.9$
483: where a saddle-node coalescence
484: is replaced by limit cycle oscillations, and (ii)
485: byrhithmicity, i.e., coexistence of two stable limit cycle oscillations,
486: for $2.8<M<4.9$.
487:
488: Figure 9 shows a two-parameter bifurcation diagram for Eqn. (5-7). Despite
489: the reduction to just three ODE's, this
490: diagram is quite complex. Multiple steady states
491: are found inside the solid lines. There are three Bogdanov-Takens
492: bifurcations in Figure 9, from which originate three independent loci of
493: Hopf bifurcations, shown by lines in violet. Two cyclic folds associated
494: with the Hopf bifurcations are shown by
495: lines in cyan. Two saddle loops, shown by green lines,
496: originate at ${\rm BT_1}$ and $\rm{ BT_2} $, cross the region of
497: bistability, and attach to the right saddle node line at two
498: saddle-node-loop bifurcation points.
499: Between these two saddle-node-loops, we find
500: a SNIC bifurcation, red line in Figure 9.
501:
502: \section{Birhythmicity and effects of extrinsic fluctuations}
503:
504: Figure 9 shows that
505: the distance between
506: the inner cyclic fold(${\rm CF_2}$) and the SNIC bifurcation varies as
507: $k_{s,b2}''$ changes.
508: In other words, depending on $k_{s,b2}''$, birhythmicity may occur
509: either close to, or far from the START transition (when the stable
510: G1 state gives way to large amplitude stable oscillations). If it happens
511: far away from START, it will not interfere with cell cycle progression.
512: However, if it occurs close to START, as in Figure 8,
513: an interesting question arises. To which
514: stable oscillation (the large amplitude or the small amplitude limit
515: cycles)
516: will the trajectory of motion (see red lines in Figure 2) connect?
517: We found that the trajectory of motion always
518: follows the large amplitude
519: slow oscillations in the three-variable model.
520: We have shown (in a separate publication)
521: that switching between small and large
522: amplitude oscillations is possible when
523: the model takes into account diffusion terms \cite{battyson}.
524: Here, we demonstrate the effects of
525: noise on the trajectory of motion.
526:
527: A complex process, such as cell cycle control, is naturally
528: subject to fluctuations from different sources.
529: For instance, stochastic effects due to
530: size and nuclear volume differences at cell
531: division have been studied for fission yeast \cite{Sveiczer}.
532: Since we know very little about the origin of fluctuations
533: in the cell cycle engine, the simplest way to incorporate random processes
534: into Eqn. (5-7) is to assume that certain
535: extrinsic fluctuations randomly
536: perturb the cell cycle engine.
537: Mathematically, we replace Eqn. (5-7) by Langevin-type equations
538: with multiplicative noise \cite{Kampen,steuer},
539:
540: \begin{eqnarray}
541: %%%Equation#1
542: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Clb2}]=F_{[{\rm Clb2}]}+\sqrt{2 D_1 [{\rm Clb2}]} \xi(t),
543: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
544: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
545: %%%Equation#2
546: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Hct1}]=F_{[{\rm Hct1}]}+\sqrt{2 D_2 [{\rm Hct1}]} \xi(t),
547: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
548: \ \ \ \ \ \ \: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
549: %%%Equation#3
550: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Cdc20}]=F_{[{\rm Cdc20}]}+\sqrt{2 D_3 [{\rm Cdc20}]} \xi(t),
551: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
552: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
553: %%%Equation#4
554: \frac{dM}{dt}=\mu M.
555: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
556: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
557: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
558: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \: \:
559: \\
560: \nonumber
561: \end{eqnarray}
562: where, $F_{[{\rm Clb2}]}$, $F_{[{\rm Hct1}]}$, $F_{[{\rm Cdc20}]}$ are the
563: right hand sides of Eqn. (5-7) and
564: $\xi(t)$ is Gaussian white noise with zero
565: mean and unit variance,
566: \begin{equation}
567: <\xi(t)=0>, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ <\xi(t) \xi(t')>=\delta(t-t').
568: \end{equation}
569:
570: We assume that mass increase is not affected by random fluctuations
571: \cite{steuer}.
572:
573: We simulated Eqn. (8-11) using standard numerical techniques for
574: stochastic differential equations \cite{Sancho1,Sancho2}. In
575: Figure 10 we overplot two different simulations. The dashed lines
576: show time evolutions of $M$, [Clb2], [Cdc20] and [Hct1]
577: when birhythmicity occurs far from START.
578: In this case, noise does not interfere with
579: mitosis, and cell mass divides each time [Clb2]
580: drops below $0.1$. The solid lines show the case when
581: birhythmicity occurs close to START, as in Figure 8. In this
582: case noise can switch the control system from slow,
583: large amplitude oscillations to fast, small amplitude oscillations.
584: As a result, [Clb2] does not go below $0.1$ and the cell
585: cannot divide. Consequently, mass $M$ grows and the
586: system goes to the stable steady state (see filled
587: diamonds at $M>3.9$ in Figure 8).
588: Therefore, in the presence of noise,
589: birhythmicity may lead to mitotic arrest.
590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
593: \section{Discussion}
594: In this work, we carried out bifurcation analysis of a model of
595: the budding yeast cell cycle, based on earlier work by Chen et al.
596: \cite{Kathy} which successfully accounts for many observed features of
597: proliferating yeast cells. Our results show that,
598: despite a peculiarity in topology of
599: the bifurcation diagram, the budding yeast cell cycle model
600: displays the same basic features previously associated with
601: frog egg and fission yeast models; namely,
602: saddle-node bifurcations associated with stable and unstable oscillations.
603:
604: We explored bistability and hysteresis in this model by
605: numerical bifurcation analysis.
606: Some of our bifurcation diagrams can be useful for designing new
607: experiments. For instance, our two parameter bifurcation analysis
608: (Figure 4b) suggests that the [Hct1] and [Sic1] modules may lead
609: independently to bistable states, and there can be regions in
610: parameter space with three stable steady states,
611: when these two modules operate cooperatively.
612:
613: We found that a reduced model with four time-dependent
614: variables retains the main characteristics of the bifurcation diagram
615: of Chen's model. This reduction allows us
616: to explore the dominant roles of SBF and Mcm1 transcription
617: factors in budding yeast checkpoint controls.
618: Our two-parameter bifurcation diagrams (Figure 6) also
619: can be useful in designing experiments for cell cycle controls by
620: transcription factors.
621:
622: The budding yeast cell cycle model of Chen et al. is parameter rich.
623: Although the parameter set presented in Table I
624: leads to a satisfactory fit of the model to many experimental
625: observations,
626: the choice of parameter values should be further constrained
627: by new biochemical data about the protein-protein interactions
628: and further improved by automatic
629: parameter estimation techniques \cite{jason,bat}.
630: On the other hand, different sets of parameters, leading
631: to different bifurcation scenarios, are interesting
632: from a theoretical standpoint. We have proposed a set of parameters for
633: a reduced, three-variable model leading to a SNIC bifurcation.
634:
635: An interesting feature accompanying the appearance
636: of a SNIC bifurcation in the reduced model
637: is birhythmicity. Birhythmicity
638: has been found in a chemical system \cite{Birythm}, but
639: for biological systems, it is known theoretically only
640: \cite{Goldbeter,Moran,Borisuk}.
641: We have shown that in the presence of extrinsic fluctuations,
642: birhythmicity can lead to mitotic arrest.
643: The fact that noise can switch a biochemical system from
644: one stable solution to another is well known (e.g. Ref.
645: \cite{adams,Hasty}), but switching from one stable oscillations
646: to another is a less studied research area. A more systematic study
647: of switching between stable limit cycles is a problem for the future.
648:
649: \acknowledgments
650: Authors thank Kathy Chen and other members of Computational
651: Cell Biology Group at Virginia Tech for many
652: stimulating discussions. This work was supported by a grant from DARPA's
653: Biocomputation Program(AFRL $\#$F300602-02-0572).
654:
655: \newpage
656:
657: \centerline{\bf Figure Captions}
658:
659: Fig. 1. Wiring diagram of a budding yeast cell cycle model \cite{Kathy}.
660:
661:
662: Fig. 2. A one-parameter bifurcation diagram of Eqn. (A1-A20)
663: for parameter values in Table I.
664: Solid lines indicate stable steady states. Dashed lines indicate
665: unstable steady states. Solid circles denote the maximum and minimum
666: values of $[{\rm Clb2}]_T$ on
667: stable limit cycle oscillations, open circles denote the same
668: for unstable oscillations. The
669: red line shows the trajectory of motion when Eqn. (A1-A20) are
670: supplemented by the mass growth equation $\dot{M}=\mu M$. The cell
671: divides ($M=f \cdot M$) when $[{\rm Clb2}]_T$ drops below $0.005$.
672:
673:
674: Fig. 3. Bistability and hysteresis driven by [Cln2] and [Cdc20].
675: On the left plane $[{\rm Cln2}] \equiv 0$, on the right plane
676: $[{\rm Cdc20}] \equiv 0$.
677: Mass is fixed at 1. Filled diamonds show stable steady states,
678: dashed lines show unstable steady states.
679: Dotted lines and arrows indicate the START and FINISH
680: transitions of the hysteresis loop. (START refers to the
681: G1 $\longrightarrow$ S
682: transition, FINISH refers to the M $\longrightarrow$ G1 transition.)
683:
684:
685: Fig. 4a. Two-parameter bifurcation diagram on the $([{\rm Cln2}],M)$
686: plane. Multiple steady states are found inside the cusp-shaped curve.
687:
688:
689: Fig. 4b. Two-parameter bifurcation
690: diagram on the $([{\rm Cdc20]},M)$ plane. There are two independent
691: pairs of saddle-node bifurcation curves in this figure
692: (dashed curves and dotted curves).
693: Depending on the overlaps of the regions bounded by these curves, the
694: number of steady states varies from I to V.
695:
696: Fig. 4c. Two parameter bifurcation diagram on the $([{\rm Cln2}],
697: [{\rm Cdc20}])$ plane.
698: Bistable steady states are found in between the dashed curves.
699:
700: Fig. 5. Wiring diagram of a reduced model with four-variables.
701:
702: Fig. 6a. Two-parameter bifurcation diagram of Eqn. (1-4) on the $(k_{s,n2}'',M)$
703: plane. Loci of saddle node bifurcations (SN) are shown by
704: dashed lines. Other lines trace saddle loop (solid),
705: cyclic fold
706: (dotted), and Hopf (dot-dash) bifurcation points.
707:
708: Fig. 6b. Two-parameter bifurcation diagram
709: of Eqn. (1-4) on the $(k_{s,b2}'',M)$ plane. Bistable steady states
710: are found inside the SN curve (dashed line).
711: Other lines indicate loci of saddle loops (solid),
712: cyclic folds (dotted), and Hopf bifurcations (dot-dash).
713: The locus of Hopf bifurcations
714: originates from a Bogdanov-Takens point shown by the filled circle.
715:
716: Fig. 7. Stationary solutions of Eqn. (5-6) can be
717: computed from the intersections of the [Hct1] nullcline (solid line)
718: and the [Clb2] nullcline (dashed line). In this plot mass is fixed at $M=2$.
719: Notice that $\rm{[Clb2]} \approx 0.15$ is the region where
720: [Mcm1] changes abruptly from 0 to 1.
721:
722: Fig. 8. Bifurcation diagram of Eqn. (5-7). Filled diamonds
723: show stable steady states, dashed lines show unstable steady states.
724: Stable limit cycle oscillations are shown by filled circles,
725: unstable limit cycle oscillations are shown by open
726: circles.
727:
728: Fig. 9. Two-parameter bifurcation diagram of Eqn. (5-7) on the
729: $(M,k_{s,b2}'')$ plane. Bistability is found inside the SN curve (solid line).
730: Three different Hopf bifurcations (violet lines) originate from three
731: Bogdanov-Takens bifurcation points shown by filled circles at
732: ${\rm BT_1}$, $\rm{ BT_2}$
733: and $\rm {BT_3}$. Cyclic folds are shown by lines in cyan, saddle loops
734: by lines in green, and the red solid line shows SNIC bifurcations.
735: ${\rm SL_3}$, which runs next to ${\rm HB_3}$, is not shown on the diagram.
736: ${\rm CF_2}$ runs from a degenerate Hopf bifurcation on ${\rm HB_1}$
737: to a degenerate Hopf bifurcation on ${\rm HB_2}$. ${\rm CF_1}$ runs from
738: a degenerate saddle loops on ${\rm SL_1}$ to a degenerate saddle loop on
739: ${\rm SL_2}$ (not shown), crossing over ${\rm HB_1}$
740: on the way. Where ${\rm CF_1}$ and ${\rm CF_2}$ run very close together,
741: only ${\rm CF_2}$ is plotted on the figure.
742:
743: Fig. 10. Stochastic simulations of Eqn. (8-11).
744: Dashed lines show a case when birhythmicity
745: occurs far from the SNIC bifurcation. In this case, noise does not
746: interfere with cell cycle progression. Solid lines show the case
747: when birhythmicity occurs close to the SNIC bifurcation,
748: as in Figure 8. In the presence of noise, the latter case leads
749: eventually to
750: mitotic arrest. Parameters are: $D_1=D_2=D_3=3.75\cdot10^{-5}$.
751: Solid lines for $k_{s,b2}''=0.05$,
752: dashed lines for $k_{s,b2}''=0.06$.
753:
754: \newpage
755: \appendix
756: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
757: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
758: \section{Model for budding yeast cell cycle}
759:
760: \begin{widetext}
761: \begin{eqnarray}
762: \frac{d}{dt} [{\rm Cln2}] = M (k_{s,n2}'+k_{s,n2}'' [{\rm SBF}]) -
763: k_{d,n2} [{\rm Cln2}],
764: \ \ \
765: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
766: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
767: %%%Equation#1
768: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Clb2}]_T=M (k_{s,b2}'+k_{s,b2}'' [{\rm Mcm1}] )
769: - ( k_{d,b2}'+(k_{d,b2}''-k_{d,b2}') [{\rm Hct1}]
770: +k_{d,b2}''' [{\rm Cdc20}]) [{\rm Clb2}]_T,\ \ \ \ \ \ \; \ \ \ \ \\\
771: %%%Equation#2
772: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Hct1}]=\frac{(k_{a,t1}'+k_{a,t1}''
773: [{\rm Cdc20}])(1-[{\rm Hct1}])}{J_{a,t1}+1-[{\rm Hct1}]}-\frac{V_{i,t1}
774: [{\rm Hct1}]}{J_{i,t1}+[{\rm Hct1}]}, \: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
775: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
776: %%%Equation#3
777: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Cdc20}]_T=(k_{s,20}'+k_{s,20}''
778: [{\rm Clb2}]) -k_{d,20} [{\rm Cdc20}]_T,\
779: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
780: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \; \\
781: %%%Equation#4
782: \frac{d}{dt}[{\rm Cdc20}]=k_{a,20}([{\rm Cdc20}]_T-[{\rm Cdc20}])-(V_{i,20}+k_{d,20})
783: [{\rm Cdc20}], \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
784: \: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
785: %%%Equation#5
786: \frac{d}{dt} [{\rm Clb5}]_T = M (k_{s,b5}'+k_{s,b5}'' [{\rm MBF}]) -
787: (k_{d,b5}'+k_{d,b5}''[{\rm Cdc20}]) [{\rm Clb5}]_T, \; \
788: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
789: \\
790: %%%Equation#6
791: \frac{d } {dt}[{\rm Sic1}]_T= k_{s,c1}'+k_{s,c1}'' [{\rm Swi5}]
792: - (k_{d1,c1}+\frac{V_{d2c1}}{J_{d2,c1}+[{\rm Sic1}]_T})
793: [{\rm Sic1}]_T,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \:
794: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
795: %%%Equation#7
796: \frac{d} {dt} [{\rm Clb5|Sic1}]= k_{as,b5} [{\rm Clb5}] [{\rm Sic1}] -\nonumber
797: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \:
798: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
799: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \! \! \\
800: - (k_{di,b5}+ k_{d,b5}'+ k_{d,b5}'' [{\rm Cdc20}]
801: +k_{d1,c1}+\frac{V_{d2c1}}{J_{d2,c1}+[{\rm Sic1}]_T}) [{\rm Clb5|Sic1}],
802: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
803: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
804: %%%Equation#8
805: \frac{d} {dt} [{\rm Clb2|Sic1}]= k_{as,b2} [{\rm Clb2}] [{\rm Sic1}] -\nonumber
806: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \:
807: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \:
808: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
809: - (k_{di,b2}+
810: ( k_{d,b2}'+(k_{d,b2}''-k_{d,b2}') [{\rm Hct1}]
811: +k_{d,b2}''' [{\rm Cdc20}])
812: +k_{d1,c1}+\frac{V_{d2c1}}{J_{d2,c1}+[{\rm Sic1}]_T}) [{\rm Clb2|Sic1}],
813: \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
814: %%%Equation#9
815: V_{d2,c1}=k_{d2,c1}(\epsilon_{c1,n3} [{\rm Cln3}]^*+\epsilon_{c1,k2} [{\rm Bck2}]+[{\rm Cln2}]+
816: \epsilon_{c1,b5} [{\rm Clb5}]+\epsilon_{c1,b2} [{\rm Clb2}]), \ \ \!
817: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \: \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
818: {[{\rm Mcm1}]} =G(k_{a,mcm}[{\rm Clb2}],k_{i,mcm}, J_{a,mcm},J_{i,mcm}) ,
819: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \; \ \ \ \
820: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
821: {[{\rm Swi5}]} =G(k_{a,swi}[{\rm Cdc20}],k_{i,swi}'+k_{i,swi}'' [{\rm Clb2}]
822: , J_{a,swi},J_{i,swi}),\ \!
823: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
824: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
825: {[{\rm SBF}]}={[{\rm MBF}]}=G(V_{a,sbf},k_{i,sbf}'
826: +k_{i,sbf}''[{\rm Clb2}],J_{a,sbf},J_{i,sbf}), \!
827: \! \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
828: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
829: V_{a,sbf}=k_{a,sbf}([{\rm Cln2}]+\epsilon_{sbf,n3} ( [{\rm Cln3}]^*+ [{\rm Bck2}])
830: +\epsilon_{sbf,b5} [{\rm Clb5}]), \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
831: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
832: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
833: V_{i,t1}=k_{i,t1}'+k_{i,t1}''([{\rm Cln3}]^*+\epsilon_{i,t1,n2}
834: [{\rm Cln2}]+\epsilon_{i,t1,b5} [{\rm Clb5}]+\epsilon_{i,t1,b2} [{\rm Clb2}]), \
835: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
836: {[{\rm Clb2}]_T}=[{\rm Clb2}]+[{\rm Clb2|Sic1}],
837: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
838: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
839: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
840: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
841: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
842: {[{\rm Clb5}]_T}=[{\rm Clb5}]+[{\rm Clb5|Sic1}],
843: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
844: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
845: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
846: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
847: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
848: {[{\rm Sic1}]_T}=[{\rm Sic1}]+[{\rm Clb2|Sic1}]+[{\rm Clb5|Sic1}],\!\!
849: \ \ \ \ \ \ \
850: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
851: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
852: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
853: {[{\rm Bck2}]}=M [{\rm Bck2}]^0,\!\
854: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
855: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
856: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
857: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
858: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
859: {[{\rm Cln3}]^*}=[{\rm Cln3}]_{max} \frac{M D_{n3}}{J_{n3} + M D_{n3}}.
860: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
861: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
862: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \:
863: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
864: \nonumber
865: \end{eqnarray}
866: \end{widetext}
867: Golldbeter Koshland function:
868: \begin{equation}
869: G(a,b,c,d)= \frac{2 a d}{ b-a+b c +a d +\sqrt{(b-a+b c +a d)^2-4 a b (b-a)}}
870: \end{equation}
871:
872:
873: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
874: %********************* here parameter table *******************************
875:
876: \begin{table}
877: \caption{\label{tab:table2}
878: Kinetik constants for the budding yeast model}
879:
880: \begin{ruledtabular}
881: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}
882: \hline
883: Rate constants($min^{-1}$)\\
884: $k_{s,b5}'=0.006$
885: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $k_{s,b5}''=0.02$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
886: $k_{d,b5}'=0.1$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $k_{d,b5}''=0.25$\\
887: %%%%%Line 1
888: $k_{s,n2}'=0$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{0.1cm} $k_{s,n2}''=0.05$\ \ \
889: \ \ \ \ \hspace{0.06cm} $k_{d,n2}=0.1$ \\
890: %%%%%%Line2
891: $k_{s,b2}'=0.002$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{-0.02cm} $k_{s,b2}''=0.05$ \\
892: %%%%%%Line3
893: $k_{d,b2}'=0.010$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{-0.03cm} $k_{d,b2}''=2$\
894: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{0.07cm} $k_{d,b2}'''=0.05$ \\
895: %%%%%%Line4
896: $k_{s,c1}'=0.020$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{-0.03cm} $k_{s,c1}''=0.1$\
897: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{0.18cm} $k_{d1,c1}=0.01$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
898: \hspace{-0.03cm} $k_{d2,c1}=0.3$\\
899: %%%%%%Line5
900: $k_{as,b2}=50$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{-0.07cm} $k_{as,b5}=50$ \ \ \
901: \ \ \ \ \ \ $k_{di,b2}=0.05$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $k_{di,b5}=0.05$ \\
902: %%%%%%Line6
903: $k_{s,20}'=0.005$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{-0.02cm}
904: $k_{s,20}''=0.06$\ \ \hspace{-0.08cm} \
905: \ \ \ \ \ $k_{d,20}=0.08$ \\
906: %%%%%%Line7
907: $k_{a,20}=1$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{0.0cm} $k_{i,20}'=0.1$ \ \
908: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{-0.1cm} $k_{i,20}''=10$\\
909: %%%%%%Line8
910: $k_{a,t1}'=0.04$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $k_{a,t1}''=2$
911: \hspace{-0.05cm} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{0.3cm} $k_{i,t1}'=0$ \ \ \ \ \
912: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $k_{i,t1}''=0.64$ \\
913: %%%%%%Line9
914: $k_{a,sbf}=1$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{0.05cm} $k_{a,mcm}=1$
915: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $k_{a,swi}=1$
916: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{-0.05cm} $k_{i,mcm}=0.15$ \\
917: %%%%%%Line10
918: $k_{i,sbf}'=0.5$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \hspace{0.1cm}
919: $k_{i,sbf}''=6$\ \ \hspace{0.05cm}
920: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $k_{i,swi}'=0.3$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $k_{i,swi}''=0.2$ \\
921: Characteristic concentrations(dimensionless) \\
922: $[{\rm Cln3}]_{max}=0.02$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $[{\rm Bck2}]^0=0.0027$
923: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $J_{d2,c1}=0.05$\\
924: $J_{a,sbf}=J_{i,sbf}=0.01$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ $J_{a,mcm}=J_{i,mcm}=1$
925: \\
926: $J_{a,swi}=J_{i,swi}=0.1$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $J_{a,t1}=J_{i,t1}=0.05$\\
927: Kinase efficiencies(dimensionless)\\
928: $\epsilon_{c1,n3}=20$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\epsilon_{c1,k2}=2$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
929: $\epsilon_{c1,b2}=0.067$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\epsilon_{c1,b5}=1$\\
930: $\epsilon_{i,t1,n2}=1$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\epsilon_{i,t1,b2}=1$ \ \
931: \ \ \ \ \hspace{0.05cm} $\epsilon_{i,t1,b5}=0.5$\\
932: $\epsilon_{sbf,n3}=75$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\epsilon_{sbf,b5}=0.5$
933: \ \ \ \ \ \ $V_{i,20}=0.05$\\
934: Other parameters\\
935: $f=0.433$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $J_{n3}=6$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $D_{n3}=1$
936: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $\mu=0.005776$
937: \\
938:
939:
940: \end{tabular}
941: \end{ruledtabular}
942: \end{table}
943: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
944: \newpage
945: % ******************* here references start ****************************
946: \begin{thebibliography}{}
947: %1
948: \bibitem{Nurse} P. Nurse, Cell {\bf 100}, 71 (2000).
949: %2
950: \bibitem{Watson} B. Alberts, D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts,
951: and J. D. Watson, \emph{Molecular Biology of the Cell} 3rd edition,
952: New York: Garland Publishers (1994).
953: %3
954: \bibitem{Murray} A. Murray and T. Hunt, \emph{The Cell Cycle},
955: New York, W. H. Freeman Co. (1989).
956: %3a
957: \bibitem{norel} R. Norel and Z. Agur, Science {\bf 251}, 1076(1991).
958: %3b
959: \bibitem{obey} M. N. Obeyesekere, S. O. Zimmerman, E. S. Tecarro, G.
960: Auchmuty, Bull. Math Biol. {\bf 61}, 917(1999).
961: %3b
962: \bibitem{hatz} V. Hatzimanikatis, K. H. Lee, and J. E. Bailey,
963: Biotechnol. Bioeng. {\bf 65}, 631(1999).
964: %4
965: \bibitem{Nasmyth} K. Nasmyth, Trends. Genet. {\bf 12}, 405 (1996).
966: %5
967: \bibitem{JTbook} C. P. Fall, E. S. Marland, J. M. Wagner, J. J. Tyson
968: Editors, \emph{ Computational Cell Biology}
969: Springer-Verlag, New York (2002).
970: %6
971: \bibitem{Kathy} K. Chen, A. Csikasz-Nagy, B. Georffy, J. Val,
972: B. Novak and J. J. Tyson, Mol. Biol. Cell. {\bf 11}, 369 (2000).
973: %7
974: \bibitem{Cross} F. R. Cross, V. Archambault, M. Miller and
975: M. Klovstad, Mol. Biol. Cell. {\bf 13}, 52 (2002).
976: \bibitem{Sible} W. Sha, J. Moore, K. Chen, A. D. Lassaletta,
977: C. Yi, J. J. Tyson, J. C. Sible, PNAS USA {\bf 100}, 975 (2003).
978: \bibitem{Kuznetsov} Y. A. Kuznetsov, \emph{Elements of Applied Bifurcation Theory},
979: New York, Springer Verlag, (1995).
980: \bibitem{Strogatz} S. H. Strogatz, \emph{Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos},Reading, MA,
981: Addison-Wesley, (1994).
982: \bibitem{kohn} K. W. Kohn, Mol. Biol. Cell {\bf 10}, 2703(1999).
983: \bibitem{Borisuk} M. T. Borisuk and J. J. Tyson, J.
984: Theor. Biol. {\bf 195}, 69 (2000).
985: \bibitem{Chaos} B. Novak, Z. Pataki, A. Gilberto and J. J. Tyson,
986: Chaos {\bf 11}, 277 (2001).
987: \bibitem{Doedel} E. J. Doedel, T. F. Fairgrieve, B. Sandstede,
988: A. R. Champneys, Y. A. Kuznetsov, X. Wang, \emph{Auto 97:
989: Continuation and Bifurcation for Ordinary Differential Equations
990: (with HomCont)}, 1998.
991: \bibitem{Goldbeter}
992: A. Goldbeter, \emph{Biochemical Oscillations and Cellular Rhythms},
993: Cambridge (1996).
994: \bibitem{Koshland} A. Goldbeter, D. E. Koshland,
995: PNAS USA {\bf 78}, 6840 (1981).
996: \bibitem{BioEss} J. J. Tyson, A. Csikasz-Nagy, and Bela Novak,
997: BioEssay {\bf 24}, 1095 (2002).
998: \bibitem{JTBtyson} J. J. Tyson and B. Novak, J.
999: Theor. Biol. {\bf 210}, 249 (2001).
1000: \bibitem{novak} J. J. Tyson, K. Chen, and B. Novak,
1001: Nature Reviews {\bf 2}, 908 (2001).
1002: \bibitem{Hunding} M. Kaern and A. Hunding, J. Theor. Biol.
1003: {\bf 193}, 47(1998).
1004: \bibitem {battyson} D. Battogtokh and J. J. Tyson, preprint (2004).
1005: (arxiv:q-bio.SC/0402040)
1006: \bibitem{Sveiczer} A. Sveiczer, J. J. Tyson and B. Novak,
1007: Biophys. Chem. {\bf 92}, 1(2001).
1008: \bibitem{Kampen} N. G. van Kampen, \emph{Stochastic Processes in Physics and
1009: Chemistry}, Elsevier ScienceB. V., Amsterdam, (1992).
1010: \bibitem{steuer} R. Steuer, {\em Effects of stochasticity in models of
1011: the cell cycle: from quantized cycle times to noise-induced oscillations},
1012: in press.
1013: \bibitem{Sancho1} J. M. Sancho, M. San-Miguel, S. L. Katz and
1014: J. D. Gunton, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 26}, 1589(1982).
1015: \bibitem{Sancho2} J. Garcia-Ovajo, J. M. Sancho, \emph{Noise in
1016: Spatially Extended Systems}, Springer-Verlag, New York, (1999).
1017: \bibitem{jason} J. W. Zwolak, J. J. Tyson, and L. T. Watson, \emph{
1018: Parameter Estimation for a Mathematical Model
1019: of the Cell Cycle in Frog Eggs},
1020: Technical Report TR-02-18, Computer Science, Virginia Tech. (2002).
1021: \bibitem{bat} D. Battogtokh, D. K.Asch, M. E. Case, J. Arnold,
1022: and H. B. Schuttler, PNAS USA {\bf 99}, 16904 (2002).
1023: \bibitem{Birythm} T. Haberrichter, M. Marhl, and R. Heinrich,
1024: Biophys. Chem. {\bf 90}, 17(2001).
1025: \bibitem{Moran} C. Perez-Iratxeta, J. Halloy, F. Moran, J. L. Martiel,
1026: A. Goldbeter, Biophys. Chem. {\bf 74}, 197(1998).
1027: \bibitem{adams} H. M. McAdams and A. Arkin, Annu. Rev. Biophys.
1028: Biomol. Struct. {\bf 27}, 199(1998).
1029: \bibitem{Hasty} J. Hasty, J. Paradines, M. Dolnik, J. J. Collins,
1030: PNAS USA {\bf 97}, 2075(2000).
1031: \end{thebibliography}
1032:
1033:
1034: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1035: %********************* here figures start *******************************
1036: %\newpage
1037: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1038: %\centerline{
1039: %\epsfig{file=Figure1.eps,scale=0.8,angle=0}
1040: }
1041: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 1}}
1042: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1043: %\newpage
1044: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1045: %\centerline{
1046: %\epsfig{file=Figure2.eps,scale=1,angle=0}
1047: %}
1048:
1049: %\bigskip
1050: %\bigskip
1051: %\bigskip
1052: %\bigskip
1053:
1054:
1055: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 2}}
1056: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1057:
1058: %\newpage
1059: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1060: %\centerline{
1061: %\epsfig{file=Figure3.eps,scale=0.8,angle=0}
1062: %}
1063:
1064:
1065: %\bigskip
1066: %\bigskip
1067: %\bigskip
1068: %\bigskip
1069:
1070: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 3}}
1071: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1072:
1073: %\newpage
1074: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1075: %\centerline{
1076: %\epsfig{file=Figure4a.eps,scale=1,angle=0}
1077: %}
1078:
1079: %\bigskip
1080: %\bigskip
1081: %\bigskip
1082: %\bigskip
1083:
1084: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 4a}}
1085: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1086:
1087: %\newpage
1088: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1089: %\centerline{
1090: %\epsfig{file=Figure4b.eps,scale=1,angle=0}
1091: %}
1092:
1093: %\bigskip
1094: %\bigskip
1095: %\bigskip
1096: %\bigskip
1097:
1098:
1099: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 4b}}
1100: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1101:
1102: %\newpage
1103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1104: %\centerline{
1105: %\epsfig{file=Figure4c.eps,scale=1,angle=0}
1106: %}
1107:
1108: %\bigskip
1109: %\bigskip
1110: %\bigskip
1111: %\bigskip
1112:
1113: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 4c}}
1114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1115:
1116: %\newpage
1117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1118: %\centerline{
1119: %\epsfig{file=Figure5.eps,scale=1,angle=0}
1120: %}
1121:
1122: %\bigskip
1123: %\bigskip
1124: %\bigskip
1125: %\bigskip
1126:
1127: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 5}}
1128: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1129:
1130: %\newpage
1131: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1132: %\centerline{
1133: %\epsfig{file=Figure6a.eps,scale=1,angle=0}
1134: %}
1135:
1136: %\bigskip
1137: %\bigskip
1138: %\bigskip
1139: %\bigskip
1140:
1141: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 6a}}
1142: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1143:
1144: %\newpage
1145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1146: %\centerline{
1147: %\epsfig{file=Figure6b.eps,scale=1,angle=0}
1148: %}
1149:
1150: %\bigskip
1151: %\bigskip
1152: %\bigskip
1153: %\bigskip
1154:
1155: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 6b}}
1156: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1157:
1158:
1159:
1160: %\newpage
1161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1162: %\centerline{
1163: %\epsfig{file=Figure7.eps,scale=1,angle=0}
1164: %}
1165:
1166: %\bigskip
1167: %\bigskip
1168: %\bigskip
1169: %\bigskip
1170:
1171: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 7}}
1172: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1173:
1174: %\newpage
1175: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1176: %\centerline{
1177: %\epsfig{file=Figure8.eps,scale=1,angle=0}
1178: %}
1179:
1180: %\bigskip
1181: %\bigskip
1182: %\bigskip
1183: %\bigskip
1184:
1185: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 8}}
1186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1187:
1188: %\newpage
1189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1190: %\centerline{
1191: %\epsfig{file=Figure9.eps,scale=1,angle=0}
1192: %}
1193:
1194: %\bigskip
1195: %\bigskip
1196: %\bigskip
1197: %\bigskip
1198:
1199: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 9}}
1200: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1201:
1202: %\newpage
1203: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1204: %\centerline{
1205: %\epsfig{file=Figure10.eps,scale=1,angle=0}
1206: %}
1207:
1208: %\bigskip
1209: %\bigskip
1210: %\bigskip
1211: %\bigskip
1212:
1213: %{\centerline {\LARGE Figure 10}}
1214: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1215:
1216: %********************* here figures end *******************************
1217:
1218:
1219: \end{document}