1: % Template article for preprint document class `elsart'
2: % SP 2001/01/05
3:
4: \documentclass[subeqnarray]{elsart}
5: \bibliographystyle{agsm}
6: % Use the option doublespacing or reviewcopy to obtain double line spacing
7: % \documentclass[doublespacing]{elsart}
8:
9: % if you use PostScript figures in your article
10: % use the graphics package for simple commands
11: % \usepackage{graphics}
12: % or use the graphicx package for more complicated commands
13: \usepackage{graphicx}
14: \usepackage{natbib}
15: \usepackage{subeqnarray}
16:
17:
18: % or use the epsfig package if you prefer to use the old commands
19: % \usepackage{epsfig}
20:
21: % The amssymb package provides various useful mathematical symbols
22: \usepackage{amssymb}
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26: \begin{frontmatter}
27:
28: % Title, authors and addresses
29:
30: % use the thanksref command within \title, \author or \address for footnotes;
31: % use the corauthref command within \author for corresponding author footnotes;
32: % use the ead command for the email address,
33: % and the form \ead[url] for the home page:
34: \title{Modeling of Negative Autoregulated \\
35: Genetic Networks in Single Cells}
36: % \thanks[label1]{}
37: \author{Azi Lipshtat, Hagai B. Perets, Nathalie Q. Balaban and Ofer Biham}
38: \address{Racah Inst. of Physics, The Hebrew University,
39: Jerusalem 91904, Israel}
40: %\corauthref{Ofer Biham }
41: %\thanksref{label2}}
42: %\ead{biham@phys.huji.ac.il}
43: % \ead[url]{home page}
44: % \thanks[label2]{}
45: % \corauth[cor1]{}
46: %\address{Address\thanksref{label3}}
47: % \thanks[label3]{}
48:
49: %\title{}
50:
51: % use optional labels to link authors explicitly to addresses:
52: % \author[label1,label2]{}
53: % \address[label1]{}
54: % \address[label2]{}
55:
56: %\author{}
57:
58:
59:
60: \begin{abstract}
61: We discuss recent developments in the modeling of negative
62: autoregulated genetic networks. In particular, we consider
63: the temporal evolution of the population of mRNA and proteins
64: in simple networks using rate equations. In the limit of low copy
65: numbers fluctuation effects become significant and more
66: adequate modeling is then achieved using the master equation formalism.
67: The analogy between regulatory gene networks and chemical reaction
68: networks on dust grains in the interstellar medium is discussed.
69: The analysis and simulation of complex reaction networks are also considered.
70: \end{abstract}
71:
72: \begin{keyword}
73: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword
74: genetic networks \sep repression \sep master equation
75: \end{keyword}
76: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code
77: %\PACS
78: \end{frontmatter}
79:
80: \section{Introduction}
81: \label{Sec:intro}
82:
83: Recent advances in molecular biology techniques for the engineering of synthetic
84: networks have made possible the measurement of populations of mRNA's
85: and proteins in simple genetic networks.
86: Measurements of the average protein content of cells
87: and their time dependence enabled to quantify the behavior of genetic
88: networks
89: \citep{Kalir2001}.
90: These measurements have been modeled using rate equations,
91: mainly under quasi steady state conditions.
92: However, real biological systems are likely be away from steady state
93: \citep{Smith1968,Murray1989}.
94: Furthermore, many components of cells appear in low copy numbers and
95: are therefore subjected to large fluctuations.
96: Recently, such fluctuations at the level of a single cell
97: were measured experimentally using the
98: green fluorescent protein (GFP)
99: \citep{Elowitz2002,Swain2002,Paulsson2004}.
100: Measurements of protein levels in single cells revealed distributions
101: that depend on the topology of the regulatory
102: network controlling the particular protein.
103: For example, it was shown that negative autoregulated networks
104: reduce fluctuations
105: \citep{Becskei2000}.
106: The modeling of these fluctuations cannot be done using rate
107: equations and requires the master equation formalism
108: \citep{McAdams1997,McAdams1999,Paulsson2000,Paulsson2000b,Kepler2001,Paulsson2002,Paulsson2004}.
109:
110: In this paper we consider the modeling of negative
111: autoregulated genetic networks in cell populations and in single cells.
112: We focus on the simplest network in which
113: a single protein serves as a repressor for the production of its own mRNA.
114: Such network may serve as a module
115: or ``network motif''
116: in complex regulatory networks
117: \citep{Milo2002,Milo2004}.
118: We describe the time dependence of the system using rate equations.
119: In commonly used models it is assumed that the population
120: of the bound repressor proteins is in quasi steady state.
121: We consider the dynamics of the network when this assumption does
122: not hold.
123: We show that in such cases the commonly used models underestimate
124: the response of the system to variations in the external conditions.
125: In such cases one should take into account the bound repressors as
126: a separate population.
127: In the limit of low copy numbers of the mRNA's and proteins stochastic
128: noise becomes significant. We show that in this limit the rate equations
129: should be replaced by a master equation.
130: The rate and master equations used in the analysis of genetic networks
131: are closely related to those that describe chemical reaction
132: networks on small grains.
133: In this context, the limit of low copy number is achieved for reaction
134: networks on interstellar dust grains, due to the sub-micron size
135: of the grains and the extremely low flux due to the low density
136: of the interstellar gas.
137: This analogy is discussed and results obtained for grain chemistry,
138: which may also be useful for genetic network analysis,
139: are presented.
140:
141: The paper is organized as follows: in Sec. 2 we consider the dynamic behavior
142: of a simple genetic network in a cell population using rate equations.
143: In Sec. 3 we consider the limit in which each cell contains a small
144: population of proteins, where the stochastic features become significant.
145: The master equation for this system is presented.
146: The analogy between genetic networks and grain-surface chemistry is
147: discussed in Sec. 4.
148: A summary is presented in Sec. 5.
149:
150: % main text
151: \section{Rate equations}
152: \label{Sec:rate}
153:
154: In genetic autoregulatory circuits the production rate
155: of a certain product protein $A$ depends on its population size,
156: $[A]$ (given by the {\it average} number of such proteins in a cell).
157: In negative autoregulation, increasing the population size
158: $[A]$ decreases the rate of production.
159: This mechanism is commonly approximated
160: \citep{Rosenfeld2002,Paulsson2002} by the Hill function
161:
162: \begin{equation}
163: g(A)={g_{\rm max} \over {1+k[A]}}
164: \end{equation}
165:
166: \noindent
167: where $g(A)$ is the production rate of $A$ proteins,
168: $g_{\rm max}$ is the maximal production (achieved
169: in conditions where $[A]=0$) and $k$
170: is an affinity constant.
171: This approximation is in agreement with experiments
172: done at steady state
173: \citep{Yagil1971,Yagil1975}.
174: Here we consider the following circuit:
175: a population size $[R]$ of mRNA's is produced
176: with a maximal rate $g_R$ and degrades at rate
177: $d_R$.
178: This mRNA produces a protein $A$ which acts as a repressor
179: and controls the production rate of the mRNA.
180: The production rate of $A$ is thus proportional
181: to $[R]$ and its degradation rate is $d_A$.
182: The intracell dynamics is described by the
183: rate equations
184:
185: \begin{eqnarray}
186: \label{Eq:rate_2}
187: \dot{[R]}&=&{g_{R}\over 1+k[A]}-d_R[R]\nonumber\\
188: \dot{[A]}&=&g_A[R]-d_A[A].
189: \end{eqnarray}
190:
191: \noindent
192: where the dots represent time derivatives, namely
193: $\dot{[R]} = d[R]/d t$.
194: These equations have two steady state solutions, however,
195: only one of them is relevant because the other exhibits
196: negative population sizes.
197: The relevant solution is
198:
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: \label{Eq:rate_2_ss}
201: {[R]}&=&{d_A\over 2g_A}\left[\sqrt{{1 \over k^2}+
202: {4g_Ag_R \over d_Ad_Rk}}-{1\over k}\right]\nonumber\\
203: {[A]}&=&\half\left[\sqrt{{1 \over k^2}+
204: {4g_Ag_R \over d_Ad_Rk}}-{1\over k}\right]
205: \end{eqnarray}
206:
207: \noindent
208: and the convergence to this solution is fast
209: \citep{Rosenfeld2002}.
210: However, these equations do not take into account explicitly
211: the chemical mechanism
212: which enables the regulation.
213: In this mechanism, one
214: of the $A$ proteins bounds to the repression site on the
215: DNA and inhibits the mRNA production.
216: This protein should be subtracted from the population of
217: free proteins in the cell,
218: which Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate_2}) does not do.
219: In addition,
220: the constant $k$ in the
221: Hill function captures only the steady state repression rate
222: and not its dynamical behavior.
223:
224: The dynamics of the repression mechanism can be incorporated into
225: the rate equation by taking the bound protein as a
226: third component in the reaction network.
227: This gives rise to three dynamic equations:
228:
229: \begin{eqnarray}
230: \label{Eq:rate_3}
231: \dot{[R]}&=&g_{R}(1-[r])-d_R[R]\nonumber\\
232: \dot{[A]}&=&g_A[R]-d_A[A]-\alpha_0[A](1-[r]) + \alpha_1 [r]\\
233: \dot{[r]}&=&\alpha_0[A](1-[r])-\alpha_1 [r] \nonumber
234: \end{eqnarray}
235:
236: \noindent
237: where $[r]$ represents the average population of bound repressors
238: in a cell.
239: Since there is only a single repression site
240: in each cell, $[r]$ is limited to the
241: range
242: $0 \le [r] \le 1$.
243: In fact, it represents the fraction of time in
244: which the repressor site on the DNA
245: is occupied by a bound repressor.
246: The average productivity of the DNA in producing mRNA's is proportional
247: to $1-[r]$.
248: The binding coefficient
249: $\alpha_0$ is the rate in which a free protein
250: becomes bound.
251: This rate should be
252: multiplied by the number of free proteins
253: and by the average number of unoccupied repression sites per cell,
254: $1-[r]$.
255: The desorption coefficient
256: $\alpha_1$ is the rate in which a
257: bound protein leaves the repression site.
258: The reduced rate equation set given by Eq.
259: (\ref{Eq:rate_2})
260: is an approximation to the extended set of
261: Eq.
262: (\ref{Eq:rate_3})
263: in the following manner:
264: when $\alpha_0$ and $\alpha_1$ are large
265: compared to other rate constants,
266: $[r]$ approaches steady state much faster than
267: $[A]$ and $[R]$.
268: In this case, it is justified to assume that $[r]$
269: is in quasi steady state
270: and impose $\dot{[r]}=0$.
271: This gives the steady state solution
272:
273: \begin{equation}
274: [r]={\alpha_0[A] \over \alpha_1+\alpha_0[A]}.
275: \end{equation}
276:
277: \noindent
278: Substituting this solution into
279: Eq. (\ref{Eq:rate_3})
280: gives the reduced set of Eq. (\ref{Eq:rate_2}),
281: with $k=\alpha_0/\alpha_1$.
282: This implies that Eq. (\ref{Eq:rate_2_ss}) is the
283: steady state solution of Eq. (\ref{Eq:rate_3}) as well.
284: This solution is stable and there are no oscillations
285: for any values of the parameters.
286: However, the time dependent solutions of
287: Eq. (\ref{Eq:rate_2})
288: and of
289: Eq. (\ref{Eq:rate_3})
290: are not the same.
291: Whereas Eq.
292: (\ref{Eq:rate_2})
293: assumes
294: rapid convergence of $[r]$ into its steady state,
295: Eq. (\ref{Eq:rate_3}) holds also in case that the relaxation time is long.
296: %As a result, the dynamics of $[A]$ and $[R]$ can be slowed down.
297: %The time-scale of converging into steady state solution is determined by
298: %the largest among the scales in the equatoins:
299: %$g_R,g_A,d_R,d_A,\alpha_0$ and $\alpha_1$.
300: %As Eqs. \ref{Eq:rate_2} do not include all these scales
301: %(but the ratio $k=\alpha_0/\alpha_1$),
302: %the actual scale may be missing.
303: In Figs.
304: \ref{Fig:dynamicsA}
305: and
306: \ref{Fig:dynamicsB}
307: we compare the dynamics described by the two sets
308: of equations.
309: The rate constants are
310: $g_R = 0.05$,
311: $g_A = 0.06$,
312: $d_R = 0.02$,
313: $d_A = 0.02$,
314: $\alpha_0 = 0.001$
315: and
316: $\alpha_1 = 0.001$
317: (all in units of $s^{-1}$).
318: These rates represent typical transcription and translation times,
319: which are of the order of 10 to 20 seconds.
320: Typical half-life times of proteins and mRNA's vary in the range
321: of several minutes
322: \citep{Elowitz2000}.
323: All these time scales are much shorter than the cycle time, which
324: is typically around 30 minutes.
325:
326: The dynamical behavior of $[A]$ turns out to be different in the two
327: sets of equations.
328: The deviations from steady state are
329: much larger in the extended set of equations.
330: The dynamics is also highly dependent
331: on the initial condition of $[r]$ which is an additional
332: degree of freedom that does not exist in the reduced set.
333: In
334: Fig.~\ref{Fig:dynamicsA}
335: where the initial condition is $[r]=0$,
336: the extended set shows an over-shoot in $A$ production,
337: while
338: in
339: Fig.~\ref{Fig:dynamicsB}
340: where the initial condition is $[r]=1$,
341: it shows an under-shoot in $A$ production.
342:
343:
344:
345: \begin{figure}
346: \hspace{-2.0cm}
347: \includegraphics[angle=270, width=18cm]{fig1}
348: \caption{Intracell dynamics as calculated by
349: Eq. ~(\ref{Eq:rate_2}) (solid line)
350: and by Eq. ~(\ref{Eq:rate_3}) (dashed line).
351: The average amount of bound proteins $[r]$
352: is also shown (dotted line).
353: The initial conditions are $[A]=3$ and $[r]=0$.}
354: \label{Fig:dynamicsA}
355: \end{figure}
356:
357: \begin{figure}
358: \hspace{-2.0cm}
359: \includegraphics[angle=270, width=18cm]{fig2}
360: \caption{Intracell dynamics as calculated by
361: Eq. ~(\ref{Eq:rate_2}) (solid line)
362: and by Eq. ~(\ref{Eq:rate_3}) (dashed line).
363: The average amount of bounded proteins $[r]$
364: is also shown (dotted line). The initial conditions are
365: $[A]=3$ and $[r]=1$.}
366: \label{Fig:dynamicsB}
367: \end{figure}
368:
369: In some cases the regulation of the production of a protein
370: $A$ is mediated by a more complex molecule.
371: For example, the repressor may be a molecule
372: D which is a dimer of $A$ molecules
373: produced by the reaction $A+A \rightarrow D$.
374: The standard way of modeling such a
375: circuit is to modify the repression term
376: (the Hill function) in
377: Eq. ~(\ref{Eq:rate_2}) to
378:
379: \begin{eqnarray}
380: \label{Eq:rate_2_n}
381: \dot{[R]}&=&{g_{R} \over 1+k[A]^2}-d_R[R] \nonumber \\
382: \dot{[A]}&=&g_A[R]-d_A[A].
383: \end{eqnarray}
384:
385: \noindent
386: For this system
387: the extended set includes equations for
388: $[R]$ and $[A]$,
389: as well as for the
390: dimer (repressor) population
391: $[D]$ and for
392: the bound repressor $[r]$.
393: The equations take the form:
394:
395: \begin{subeqnarray}
396: \label{Eq:rate_4_n}
397: \dot{[R]}&=&g_{R}(1-[r])-d_R[R]\\
398: \slabel{Eq:rate_4_n_R}
399: \dot{[A]}&=&g_A[R]-d_A[A] - 2 \alpha_2 [A]^2\\
400: \slabel{Eq:rate_4_n_A}
401: \dot{[D]}&=& \alpha_2 [A]^2 - d_D [D]-\alpha_0[D] (1-[r])+\alpha_1 [r]\\
402: \slabel{Eq:rate_4_n_D}
403: \dot{[r]}&=&\alpha_0[D](1-[r])-\alpha_1 [r]
404: \slabel{Eq:rate_4_n_r}
405: \end{subeqnarray}
406:
407: \noindent
408: As in the ordinary case in which the repressor is the protein $A$ itself,
409: the inhibition term $1-[r]$
410: in Eq.
411: (\ref{Eq:rate_4_n_R})
412: is equal to
413: the Hill function of Eq.
414: (\ref{Eq:rate_2_n})
415: in the limit of rapid relaxation of $[r]$.
416: In this case
417: $k = \alpha_0 \alpha_2 / (\alpha_1 d_D)$.
418: However,
419: when the repressor is the dimer $D$, there is an additional
420: term in Eq. ~(\ref{Eq:rate_4_n_A})
421: which has no analogue in Eq. ~(\ref{Eq:rate_2_n}).
422: This term gives rise to a difference
423: in the results of the reduced and the extended
424: sets even
425: in the steady state solution,
426: as shown in
427: Fig~\ref{Fig:dynamics_n}.
428: The steady state solution of the extended set is stable
429: and exhibits no oscillations.
430: The parameters used in
431: Fig~\ref{Fig:dynamics_n}
432: are the same as in
433: Figs.~\ref{Fig:dynamicsA}
434: and
435: \ref{Fig:dynamicsB},
436: and the additional parameters
437: are
438: the degradation rate of dimers,
439: $d_D=0.02$
440: ($s^{-1}$),
441: and the production rate coefficient of dimers,
442: $\alpha_2=0.01$
443: ($s^{-1}$).
444: The latter coefficient is determined by the diffusion
445: rate of proteins in the cell.
446: A related quantity, namely, the time it takes for a protein
447: to diffuse across the cell was recently measured
448: \citep{Elowitz1999}
449: and found to be of the order of one second.
450: The inverse of this time can be used as an upper
451: bound for the production rate coefficient $\alpha_2$.
452:
453: The reduced set of equations does not
454: take into account explicitly the dimer population,
455: which is responsible for the repression.
456: Both Eqs.
457: (\ref{Eq:rate_2_n})
458: and
459: (\ref{Eq:rate_4_n})
460: do not take into account the fact that one needs
461: at least two $A$ proteins
462: simultaneously in the cell
463: in order to produce a dimer.
464: Therefore, when the population of $A$ proteins goes down
465: to order 1 both equations fail
466: and the master equation formalism is required.
467:
468: \begin{figure}
469: \hspace{-2.0cm}
470: \includegraphics[angle=270, width=18cm]{fig3}
471: \caption{The populations of proteins $A$ as obtained from the
472: reduced set (solid line) and from the extended set (dashed line)
473: and of dimers (repressor) $D$ (dashed-dotted line) and bound repressors
474: $r$ (dotted line) as obtained from the extended set, as a function of time.
475: The initial conditions are $[A]=3$,
476: $[D]=1$ and $[r]=1$.
477: }
478: \label{Fig:dynamics_n}
479: \end{figure}
480:
481:
482:
483: \section{The Master Equation}
484: \label{Sec:master}
485:
486: Rate equations are used to describe the dynamics of the average number of
487: entities (such as proteins)
488: in large populations such as those handled in {\it in vitro} experiments.
489: In these equations it is assumed that the densities of substances
490: are continuous variables that behave in a deterministic fashion.
491: This approach is
492: not suitable for genetic regulatory
493: networks when the populations of the relevant species in a single
494: cell are small
495: \citep{Gillespie1977,Nicolis1977,Ko1991,Ko1992,McAdams1999,Szallasi1999,Gibson2001}.
496: In this case one should take into account the discrete nature of the
497: populations and the fact that for small populations the fluctuations
498: become significant.
499: In negative regulatory systems there is a population of free repressors
500: in the cell. In addition, there is a single repression site
501: on the DNA where a single repressor molecule may bound.
502: Therefore, each repression site can be either
503: occupied by a repressor molecule (where $r=1$)
504: or vacant ($r=0$).
505: Thus, $r$ cannot take any intermediate values.
506: In such cases fluctuations may have
507: an important impact on the processes involved and their dynamics
508: should be described in more detail.
509:
510: One of the approaches suggested is the
511: use of stochastic simulations
512: which take into account the dynamics of all
513: participating substances
514: \citep{Gillespie1977,McAdams1997,Morton1998,Gibson2000}.
515: The difficulty with these simulations is that they
516: are based on the accumulation of large amounts of
517: statistical data, and thus require extensive computer simulations.
518: Thus, this approach is
519: not always feasible in the case of complex networks
520: which involve a large number of proteins.
521: A complementary approach is based on
522: direct integration of the the master equation
523: \citep{McAdams1997,McAdams1999,Paulsson2000,Paulsson2000b,Kepler2001,Paulsson2002,Paulsson2004}.
524: This approach takes into account the probability distribution
525: of all possible states of the system, and not only
526: the average values as in the rate equation approach.
527: It captures the time evolution of the probabilities
528: of all the microscopic states of the system.
529:
530: We now apply the master equation approach to study the
531: negative autoregulatory circuit of Eq. 4.
532: We denote the number of copies of the free protein $A$ by
533: $n_A$ and of the mRNA by $n_R$.
534: The number of proteins $A$ which are bound to the repression site on the
535: DNA is given by $n_r$.
536: For a single repression site $n_r$ can only take the values 0 or 1.
537: The master equation follows the time evolution of the probability
538: distribution
539: $P(n_R,n_A,n_r)$.
540: It takes the form
541:
542: \begin{subeqnarray}
543: \dot P(n_R,n_A,n_r=1) &=&
544: g_A n_R [P(n_R,n_A-1,1)-P(n_R,n_A,1)] \nonumber \\
545: &+& d_R[(n_R+1)P(n_R+1,n_A,1)-n_RP(n_R,n_A,1)] \nonumber \\
546: &+& d_A[(n_A+1)P(n_R,n_A+1,1)-n_AP(n_R,n_A,1)] \nonumber \\
547: &+& \alpha_0((n_A+1)P(n_R,n_A+1,0) \nonumber \\
548: &-& \alpha_1P(n_R,n_A,1)\\
549: \slabel{Eq:master1}
550: \dot P(n_R,n_A,n_r=0) &=&
551: g_A n_R [P(n_R,n_A-1,0)-P(n_R,n_A,0)] \nonumber \\
552: &+& d_R[(n_R+1)P(n_R+1,n_A,0)-n_R P(n_R,n_A,0)]\nonumber \\
553: &+& d_A[(n_A+1)P(n_R,n_A+1,0)-n_A P(n_R,n_A,0)]\nonumber \\
554: &-& \alpha_0 n_A P(n_R,n_A,0)\nonumber \\
555: &+& \alpha_1 P(n_R,n_A-1,1) \nonumber \\
556: &+& g_R[P(n_R-1,n_A,0)-P(n_R,n_A,0)],
557: \slabel{Eq:master2}
558: \end{subeqnarray}
559:
560: \noindent
561: where the two cases of $n_r=0$ and $n_r=1$ are
562: presented separately.
563: The first terms in the equations describe
564: the formation of a new protein.
565: The second and third terms describe the
566: degradation of the mRNA and the protein, respectively, while the fourth
567: and fifth terms describe the binding and unbinding of a protein to the
568: repression site on the DNA.
569: Eq. ~(\ref{Eq:master2})
570: also includes
571: a term that corresponds to the formation of a new mRNA
572: (not possible
573: in the repressed case).
574: These equations can be integrated numerically
575: in order to obtain the time dependence of
576: the probability distribution.
577: It can also be
578: solved for steady state by taking
579: $\dot P(n_R,n_A,n_r) = 0$.
580:
581: The master equation provides all the moments of the
582: distribution
583: $P(n_R,n_A,n_r)$
584: and their time dependence.
585: For example,
586: the average population of proteins $A$
587: is given by
588:
589: \begin{equation}
590: \langle{n_A}\rangle=
591: \sum_{n_R=0}^{n_R^{\rm max}}
592: \sum_{n_A=0}^{n_A^{\rm max}}
593: \sum_{n_r=0}^{1}
594: n_A P(n_R,n_A,n_r)
595: \label{eq:average}
596: \end{equation}
597:
598: \noindent
599: where
600: $n_R^{\rm max}$
601: and
602: $n_A^{\rm max}$
603: are the cutoff values that provide upper bounds on the populations of mRNA
604: molecules and $A$ proteins in the cell, respectively.
605: The repression site can
606: be either occupied ($n_r=1$) or unoccupied ($n_r=0$).
607:
608: \begin{figure}
609: \center
610: \hspace{-2.0cm}
611: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{fig4}
612: \caption{The steady state populations of free proteins,
613: mRNA's and bound proteins (repressor) vs. the rate constant
614: $\alpha_0$, calculated using the master
615: equation (solid line) and the rate equations (dashed line).}
616: \label{Fig:comparison}
617: \end{figure}
618:
619: \noindent
620: Solving the master equation under steady state conditions
621: for systems with different rate
622: constants we calculated the appropriate averages, and compared
623: the results with the
624: rate equations.
625: %(both the reduced and the extended
626: %set of equations (Eqs. ~(\ref{Eq:rate_2}) and ~(\ref{Eq:rate_3}))),
627: %since at steady state these two sets are in agreement for the same rate
628: %constans.
629:
630: In Fig. \ref{Fig:comparison}
631: the average levels of free proteins,
632: mRNA molecules and bound protein (repressor) in the cell (at steady state),
633: are shown vs. $\alpha_0$, as obtained from the
634: master equation (solid line) and the rate equations
635: (dashed line).
636: The rate equations turn out to overestimate the average
637: level of proteins and mRNA
638: molecules, by a factor of 2-4 for systems with low copy number
639: of proteins.
640: On the other hand, when the average number of proteins
641: in the cell is large, the results of the rate equations and master equation
642: coincide.
643:
644: Mathematically the discrepency between the results of the
645: rate equations and the master equations is due to non-linear
646: terms
647: such as the term that describe the attachment rate of proteins
648: to the repression site.
649: In the rate equation, this term is given by
650: $\alpha_0 [A] (1-[r])$,
651: namely as a product of averages (first moments).
652: In the master equation it is given by
653: the second moment
654: $\alpha_0 \langle n_A (1-n_R) \rangle$.
655: The formation of dimers is also described by a
656: nonlinear term.
657: In the rate equations this term is given by
658: $\alpha_2 [A]^2$, namely it depends only on the first moment.
659: In the master equation it
660: is given by
661: $\alpha_2 \langle n_A^2 \rangle - \alpha_2 \langle n_A \rangle$,
662: thus it depends on both the first and second moments.
663:
664: The simple networks studied here can be considered as modules
665: or motifs in complex genetic networks. However, the simulation
666: of complex networks using the master equation is difficult.
667: This is due to the proliferation in the number of equations
668: as the number of components (mRNA's and proteins) increases.
669: Consider, for example, a network that involves three protein
670: species, A, B and C.
671: The master equation is written in terms
672: of the probabilities
673: $P(n_A,n_B,n_C)$
674: of having a certain population of proteins.
675: The population size of each protein is limited
676: by an upper cutoff. For example, the population
677: of protein A takes the values $n_A = 0,1,\dots,n_A^{\rm max}$.
678: Clearly, the number of equations increases exponentially
679: with the number of species, making this approach infeasible
680: for complex networks.
681:
682: However, typically these networks are sparse, namely most
683: pairs of proteins do not interact with each other.
684: This feature makes it possible to divide the master equation
685: into several sets of equations, each set including only a
686: small number of protein species.
687: For example, if proteins B and C do not interact, the master
688: equation described above can be broken into two sets that
689: involve
690: $P_{\rm AB}(n_A,n_B)$
691: and
692: $P_{\rm AC}(n_A,n_C)$.
693: In the case of large and sparse networks this dramatically
694: reduces the number of equations and thus enables the simulation
695: of complex networks using the master equation.
696: This technique, named the multi-plane method, was recently proposed
697: in the context of chemical reaction networks on interstellar
698: dust grains
699: \citep{Lipshtat2004}.
700: The mathematical structure of these networks is similar
701: to that of genetic networks. Thus, the multi-plane method is
702: perfectly applicable for the simulations of complex genetic networks.
703: The similarity between the two systems is briefly discussed below.
704:
705: \section{Discussion: Genetic Networks and Grain-Surface Chemistry}
706:
707: Processes which exhibit a similar mathematical structure
708: to the genetic network dynamics appear in the context
709: of chemical reaction networks on interstellar dust grains.
710: The chemistry of interstellar clouds consists of reactions taking
711: place in the gas phase as well as on the surfaces of dust grains
712: \citep{Hartquist1995}.
713: It turns out that the most abundant molecule in the Universe,
714: namely molecular hydrogen does not form in the gas phase but
715: on dust grain surfaces
716: \citep{Gould1963,Hollenbach1971a,Hollenbach1971b}.
717: These grains are made of amorphous silicate and carbon
718: compounds and are of sub-micron size.
719: In addition to the formation of molecular hydrogen, these grains
720: support complex reaction networks that produce a variety of molecules
721: that consist of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.
722: Here we discuss the similarity between
723: the mathematical descriptions surface reaction networks and genetic networks.
724: In particular, we suggest that computational methodologies developed
725: in the context of interstellar grain chemistry are likely to be
726: useful for the analysis of genetic networks.
727:
728:
729: \begin{table}
730: \caption{Analogy between the processes of surface chemistry and
731: of gene regulation. }
732: \begin{tabular}{lll}
733: Description & Surface chemistry & Gene regulation\\
734: \hline
735: system & dust grain & cell \\
736: break-up mechanism & grain fragmentation & cell division \\
737: mobility & surface diffusion & diffusion in cell \\
738: addition $\varnothing\rightarrow A$ & flux $F$ & transcription $g_R$,
739: production $g_A$\\
740: removal $A \rightarrow \varnothing$ & desorption $W$ & degradation
741: $d_R,d_A$ \\
742: typical reaction & $A+B\rightarrow C+D$ & $A\rightarrow A+B$\\
743: feedback regulation & rejection: $F(1 - \theta)$ & repression: $g_R(1-[r])$ \\
744: \hline
745:
746: \end{tabular}
747: \end{table}
748:
749: Consider a dust grain
750: exposed to a flux of atomic and molecular species such
751: as H, O, OH and CO.
752: Atoms and molecules that hit and stick to the grain
753: hop as random walkers between adsorption sites
754: on its surface.
755: When two atoms/molecules encounter one another they
756: may react and form a more complex molecule.
757: The rate equations that describe the reaction networks
758: on grains include flux terms, desorption terms and reaction
759: terms.
760: The flux terms represent the flow of atoms and molecules
761: from the gas phase onto the surface.
762: The desorption rates are proportional to the population
763: sizes of atoms and molecules on the grains, while the
764: reaction terms are proportional to the products of the population
765: sizes of the reactive species.
766: In general, the rate equations resemble those that describe
767: genetic networks.
768: The analogy between the two systems is summarized in Table 1.
769: In both systems reactive species are added, diffuse, react
770: and removed.
771: The system itself may break up (cell division or grain fragmentation),
772: dividing the population of reactive species into two sub-populations.
773: Both systems exhibit some kind of negative feedback.
774: In genetic networks this is provided by the repression circuit,
775: in which the rate of attachment of proteins to the repression
776: site is given by
777: $\alpha_0 [A] (1-[r])$.
778: Certain surface reaction systems exhibit the Langmuir rejection
779: behavior, in which atoms from the gas phase that hit the surface
780: in the vicinity of an already adsorbed atoms are rejected.
781: The flux term $F$ is then modified to the form
782: $F(1 - \theta)$, where $\theta$ is the coverage, namely the
783: fraction of adsorption sites on the surface that are occupied
784: by adsorbed atoms.
785: In the context of grain-surface chemistry, low
786: copy numbers are obtained in the limit of small grains
787: under conditions of low flux.
788: In this limit the master equation is required
789: \citep{biham2001,Green2001,Biham2002}.
790: For complex reaction networks of multiple species,
791: the master equation becomes infeasible due to the
792: proliferation in the number of equations.
793: In this case, the multi-plane method is used in order
794: to keep the number of equations at a tractable level
795: \citep{Lipshtat2004}.
796:
797: \section{Summary}
798:
799: We have considered the
800: rate equation and master equation approaches to the
801: modeling of genetic networks.
802: In particular, we have studied
803: the temporal evolution of the population of mRNA and proteins
804: in simple negative autoregulated genetic networks.
805: As long as the populations of all the reactive components
806: of the network are not too small, rate
807: equations provide a good quantitative description of the
808: network dynamics.
809: However, once the populations of the mRNA or proteins
810: are reduced to order 1 or less,
811: rate equations are no longer suitable and the master equation
812: is needed.
813: This is due to the fact that the rate equations involve
814: only average quantities, while the master equation takes into
815: account the discrete nature of the populations as well as
816: the fluctuations.
817: The simple networks studied here can be considered as
818: modules or motifs in complex genetic networks.
819: The simulation of complex networks using the master equation
820: is difficult, because the number of equations quickly proliferates.
821: The multi-plane methodology, recently developed in the
822: context of grain-surface chemistry,
823: that tackles this problem is briefly described.
824: Finally,
825: the analogy between genetic
826: networks and grain-surface chemistry is discussed.
827:
828: We thank J. Paulsson for illuminating discussions.
829:
830: % \section{}
831: % \label{}
832:
833: %\bibliography{genetics,astrochemistry}
834:
835:
836: \begin{thebibliography}{xx}
837:
838: \harvarditem{{Becskei and Serrano,}}{2000}{Becskei2000}
839: {Becskei, A., Serrano, L.} \harvardyearleft 2000\harvardyearright ,
840: `{Engineering stability in gene networks by autoregulation}', {\em Nature}
841: {\bf 405},~590.
842:
843: \harvarditem{{Biham et al.,}}{2001}{biham2001}
844: {Biham, O, Furman, I., Pirronello, V., Vidali, G.} \harvardyearleft
845: 2001\harvardyearright , `{Master equation for hydrogen recombination on grain
846: surfaces}', {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf 553},~595.
847:
848: \harvarditem{{Biham and Lipshtat,}}{2002}{Biham2002}
849: {Biham, O., Lipshtat, A.} \harvardyearleft 2002\harvardyearright , `{Exact
850: results for hydrogen recombination on dust grain surfaces}', {\em Phys. Rev.
851: E} {\bf 66},~{056103}.
852:
853: \harvarditem{{Hollenbach and Salpeter,}}{1971}{Hollenbach1971a}
854: {D. Hollenbach and E.E. Salpeter} \harvardyearleft 1971\harvardyearright ,
855: `{Surface recombination of hydrogen molecules}', {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf
856: 163},~155.
857:
858: \harvarditem{{Hollenbach et al.,}}{1971}{Hollenbach1971b}
859: {D. Hollenbach, M.W. Werner and E.E. Salpeter} \harvardyearleft
860: 1971\harvardyearright , `{Molecular hydrogen in HI regions}', {\em Astrophys.
861: J.} {\bf 163},~165.
862:
863: \harvarditem{{Elowitz and Leibler,}}{2000}{Elowitz2000}
864: {Elowitz, M.B., Leibler, S.} \harvardyearleft 2000\harvardyearright , `{A
865: synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators}', {\em Nature}
866: {\bf 403},~335.
867:
868: \harvarditem{{Elowitz et al.,}}{2002}{Elowitz2002}
869: {Elowitz, M.B., Levine, A.J., Siggia, E.D., Swain, P.S.} \harvardyearleft
870: 2002\harvardyearright , `{Stochastic gene expression in a single cell}', {\em
871: Science} {\bf 297},~1183.
872:
873: \harvarditem{{Elowitz et al.,}}{1999}{Elowitz1999}
874: {Elowitz, M.B., Surette, M.G., Wolf, P.E., Stock, J.B., Leibler, S.}
875: \harvardyearleft 1999\harvardyearright , `{Protein mobility in the cytoplasm
876: of Escherichia coli}', {\em J. Bacteriol.} {\bf 181},~197.
877:
878: \harvarditem{{Gibson and Bruck,}}{2000}{Gibson2000}
879: {Gibson M.A., Bruck J.} \harvardyearleft 2000\harvardyearright , `{Efficient
880: exact stochastic simulation of chemical systems with many species and many
881: channels}', {\em J. Phys. Chem.} {\bf 104},~1876.
882:
883: \harvarditem{{Gibson and Mjolsnes,}}{2001}{Gibson2001}
884: {Gibson, M.A., Mjolsnes, E.} \harvardyearleft 2001\harvardyearright ,
885: {Modeling the activity of single genes}, {\em in} {J. M. Bower and H.
886: Bolouri}, ed., `{Computational Modeling of Genetic and Biochemical
887: Networks}', {MIT press}, {Cambridge, MA}, pp.~1--48.
888:
889: \harvarditem{{Gillespie,}}{1977}{Gillespie1977}
890: {Gillespie, D. T.} \harvardyearleft 1977\harvardyearright , `{Exact stochastic
891: simulation of coupled chemical reactions}', {\em J. Chem. Phys.} {\bf
892: 81},~2340.
893:
894: \harvarditem{{Green et al.,}}{2001}{Green2001}
895: {Green, N.J.B., Toniazzo, T., Pilling, M.J., Ruffle, D.P., Bell, N., and
896: Hartquist, T.W.} \harvardyearleft 2001\harvardyearright , `{Stochastic
897: approach to grain surface chemical kinetics}', {\em Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf
898: 375},~1111.
899:
900: \harvarditem{{Hartquist and Williams,}}{1995}{Hartquist1995}
901: {Hartquist, T.W., Williams, D.A.} \harvardyearleft 1995\harvardyearright ,
902: {\em {The chemically controlled cosmos}}, {Cambridge University Press},
903: {Cambridge, UK}.
904:
905: \harvarditem{{Kalir et al.,}}{2001}{Kalir2001}
906: {Kalir, S., McClure, J., Pabbaraju, K., Southward, C., Ronen, M., Leibler, S.,
907: Surette, M.G., Alon, U.} \harvardyearleft 2001\harvardyearright , `{Ordering
908: genes in a flagella pathway by analysis of expression kinetics from living
909: bacteria}', {\em Science} {\bf 292},~2080.
910:
911: \harvarditem{{Kepler and Elston,}}{2001}{Kepler2001}
912: {Kepler, T. B., Elston, T. C. } \harvardyearleft 2001\harvardyearright ,
913: `{Stochasticity in transcriptional regulation: origins, consequences, and
914: mathematical modeling representations}', {\em Biophysical Journal} {\bf
915: 81},~3116.
916:
917: \harvarditem{{Ko,}}{1992}{Ko1992}
918: {Ko, M. S. H. } \harvardyearleft 1992\harvardyearright , `{Induction mechanism
919: of a single gene molecule: Stochastic or deterministic?}', {\em BioEssays}
920: {\bf 14},~341.
921:
922: \harvarditem{{Ko,}}{1991}{Ko1991}
923: {Ko, M.S.H} \harvardyearleft 1991\harvardyearright , `{A stochastic model for
924: gene induction}', {\em J. Theor. Biol.} {\bf 153},~181.
925:
926: \harvarditem{{Lipshtat and Biham,}}{2004}{Lipshtat2004}
927: {Lipshtat, A., Biham, O.} \harvardyearleft 2004\harvardyearright , `{Efficient
928: simulations of gas-grain chemistry in interstellar clouds}', {\em Phys. Rev.
929: Lett.} {\bf 93},~170601.
930:
931: \harvarditem{{McAdams and Arkin,}}{1997}{McAdams1997}
932: {McAdams, H. H., Arkin, A} \harvardyearleft 1997\harvardyearright ,
933: `{Stochastic mechanisms in gene expression}', {\em Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US}
934: {\bf 94},~814.
935:
936: \harvarditem{{McAdams and Arkin,}}{1999}{McAdams1999}
937: {McAdams, H. H., Arkin, A.} \harvardyearleft 1999\harvardyearright , `{It's a
938: noisy business! Genetic regulation at the nanomolar scale}', {\em Trends
939: Genet.} {\bf 15},~65.
940:
941: \harvarditem{{Milo et al.,}}{2004}{Milo2004}
942: {Milo, R., Itzkovitz, S., Kashtan, N., Levitt, R., Shen-Orr, S., Ayzenshtat,
943: I., . Sheffer, M., Alon, U.} \harvardyearleft 2004\harvardyearright ,
944: `{Superfamilies of designed and evolved networks }', {\em Science} {\bf
945: 303},~1538.
946:
947: \harvarditem{{Milo et al.,}}{2002}{Milo2002}
948: {Milo, R. Shen-Orr, S., Itzkovitz, S., Kashtan, N., Chklovskii, D., Alon, U.}
949: \harvardyearleft 2002\harvardyearright , `{Network Motifs: Simple Building
950: Blocks of Complex Networks}', {\em Science} {\bf 298},~824.
951:
952: \harvarditem{{Morton-Firth and Bray,}}{1998}{Morton1998}
953: {Morton-Firth, C. J., Bray, D.} \harvardyearleft 1998\harvardyearright ,
954: `{Predicting temporal fluctuations in an intracellular signalling pathway}',
955: {\em J. Theor. Biol.} {\bf 192},~117.
956:
957: \harvarditem{{Murray,}}{1989}{Murray1989}
958: {Murray, J.D.} \harvardyearleft 1989\harvardyearright , {\em {Mathematical
959: Biology}}, {Springer}, {Berlin}.
960:
961: \harvarditem{{Nicolis and Prigogine,}}{1977}{Nicolis1977}
962: {Nicolis, G., Prigogine, I.} \harvardyearleft 1977\harvardyearright , {\em
963: {Self-Organization in Nonequailibrium Systems: From Dissipative Structure to
964: Order Through Fluctuations}}, {Wiley-Interscience}, {New-York}.
965:
966: \harvarditem{{Paulsson,}}{2000}{Paulsson2000b}
967: {Paulsson, J.} \harvardyearleft 2000\harvardyearright , `{Stochastic focusing:
968: fluctuation-enhanced sensitivity of intracellular regulation}', {\em Proc.
969: Natl. Acad. Sci. US} {\bf 97},~7148.
970:
971: \harvarditem{{Paulsson,}}{2002}{Paulsson2002}
972: {Paulsson, J.} \harvardyearleft 2002\harvardyearright , `{Multileveled
973: selection on plasmid replication}', {\em Genetics} {\bf 161},~1373.
974:
975: \harvarditem{{Paulsson,}}{2004}{Paulsson2004}
976: {Paulsson, J.} \harvardyearleft 2004\harvardyearright , `{Summing up the noise
977: in gene networks}', {\em Nature} {\bf 427},~415.
978:
979: \harvarditem{{Paulsson and Ehrenberg,}}{2000}{Paulsson2000}
980: {Paulsson, J., Ehrenberg, M.} \harvardyearleft 2000\harvardyearright ,
981: `{Random signal fluctuations can reduce random fluctuations in regulated
982: components of chemical regulatory networks}', {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf
983: 84},~5447.
984:
985: \harvarditem{{Gould and Salpeter,}}{1963}{Gould1963}
986: {Gould, R.J, Salpeter, E.E.} \harvardyearleft 1963\harvardyearright , `{The
987: interstellar abundance of the hydrogen molecule. I. basic processes }', {\em
988: Astrophys. J.} {\bf 138},~393.
989:
990: \harvarditem{{Rosenfeld et al.,}}{2002}{Rosenfeld2002}
991: {Rosenfeld, N., Elowitz, M.B., Alon, U.} \harvardyearleft
992: 2002\harvardyearright , `{Negative autoregulation speeds the response times
993: of transcription networks}', {\em J. Mol. Biol.} {\bf 323},~785.
994:
995: \harvarditem{{Smith,}}{1968}{Smith1968}
996: {Smith, J.M. } \harvardyearleft 1968\harvardyearright , {\em {Mathematical
997: Ideas in Biology}}, {Cambridge University Press}, {Cambridge, UK}.
998:
999: \harvarditem{{Swain et al.,}}{2002}{Swain2002}
1000: {Swain, P.S., Elowitz, M. B., Siggia, E. D.} \harvardyearleft
1001: 2002\harvardyearright , `{Intrinsic and Extrinsic contributions to
1002: stochasticity in gene expression}', {\em Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US} {\bf
1003: 99},~12795.
1004:
1005: \harvarditem{{Szallasi,}}{1999}{Szallasi1999}
1006: {Szallasi, Z.} \harvardyearleft 1999\harvardyearright , {Genetic Networks
1007: Analysis in Light of Massively Parallel Biologcal Data Acquisition}, {\em in}
1008: {Altman, R. B., Lauderdale, K., Dunker, A. K., Hunter, L., Klein, T. E}, ed.,
1009: `{Proc. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. (PSB'98), Vol. 4}', {World Scientific
1010: Publishing}, {Singapore}, pp.~1--48.
1011:
1012: \harvarditem{{Yagil,}}{1975}{Yagil1975}
1013: {Yagil, G.} \harvardyearleft 1975\harvardyearright , {Quantitive aspects of
1014: protein induction}, {\em in} {B. L. Horecker and E. R. Stadtman}, ed.,
1015: `{Current Topics in Cell Reulation}', {Academic Press}, {New-York},
1016: pp.~183--237.
1017:
1018: \harvarditem{{Yagil and Yagil,}}{1971}{Yagil1971}
1019: {Yagil, G., Yagil, E.} \harvardyearleft 1971\harvardyearright , `{On the
1020: relationship between effector concentration and the rate of induced enzyme
1021: synthesis}', {\em Biophysical Journal} {\bf 11},~11.
1022:
1023: \end{thebibliography}
1024:
1025:
1026:
1027: %\begin{thebibliography}{00}
1028:
1029: % \bibitem{label}
1030: % Text of bibliographic item
1031:
1032: % notes:
1033: % \bibitem{label} \note
1034:
1035: % subbibitems:
1036: % \begin{subbibitems}{label}
1037: % \bibitem{label1}
1038: % \bibitem{label2}
1039: % If there is a note, it should come last:
1040: % \bibitem{label3} \note
1041: % \end{subbibitems}
1042:
1043: %\bibitem{}
1044:
1045: %\end{thebibliography}
1046:
1047: \end{document}
1048: