1: \documentclass[12pt, a4paper]{article}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

4: \newtheorem{algorithm}[theorem]{Algorithm}

5: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}

6: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

7: \newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}

8: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

9: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

10: \newtheorem{axiom}[theorem]{Axiom}

11: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}

12: \begin{document}

13: \title{Sequential recruitment and combinatorial assembling of multiprotein complexes %%@

14: in transcriptional activation}

15: \author{Vincent Lemaire,$^{1,*}$ Chiu Fan Lee,$^{2,*}$ Jinzhi Lei,$^{3,1}$\\

16: Rapha\"{e}l M\'{e}tivier,$^{4}$ 

17: and Leon Glass$^{1}$

18: \\

19: \\

20: $^1$Centre for Nonlinear Dynamics, McGill University, Canada

21: \\

22: $^2$Physics Department, Clarendon Laboratory

23: \\

24: Oxford University, UK

25: \\

26: $^3$Zhou Pei-Yuan Center for Applied Mathematics

27: \\

28:  Tsinghua University, China

29: \\

30: $^4$UMR 6026, \'{E}quipe EMR, Universit\'{e} de Rennes 1, France

31: }

32: 

33: 

34: \maketitle

35: 

36: \begin{abstract}

37: In human cells, estrogenic signals induce cyclical association and dissociation of %%@

38: specific proteins with the DNA in order to activate transcription of %%@

39: estrogen-responsive genes. These oscillations can be modeled by assuming a large %%@

40: number of sequential reactions represented by linear kinetics with random kinetic %%@

41: rates. Application of the model to experimental data predicts robust binding sequences %%@

42: in which proteins associate with the DNA at several different phases of the %%@

43: oscillation. Our methods circumvent the need to derive detailed kinetic graphs, and %%@

44: are applicable to other oscillatory biological processes involving a large number of %%@

45: sequential steps.

46: \end{abstract}

47: 

48: 

49: The central dogma of molecular biology states that for a given gene,

50: the sequence of nucleotide bases in DNA is transcribed into messenger

51: RNA which in turn is translated into a specific sequence of amino

52: acids that constitute the protein coded by the initial gene. In higher

53: organisms, such as ourselves, transcriptional control is a crucial

54: step in the regulation of gene expression. 

55: This control is modulated

56: by the configuration of proteins around promoters (DNA regions in the

57: proximity of genes that carry out the integration of transcriptional

58: signals). Although there are a large number of theoretical models of transcriptional %%@

59: control

60: networks~\cite{networks} and transcriptional control of a single gene in %%@

61: prokaryotes~\cite{prokaryotes}, theoretical analysis of transcriptional control of a %%@

62: single gene in eukaryotes is much less developed~\cite{eukaryotes}.%,ISHII2000}.

63: 

64: Histones and other protein molecules associate with the DNA to form

65: chromatin, the constituent of the chromosomes of eukaryotes.  In order

66: for transcription to occur, chromatin must be unfolded from its

67: condensed geometry in which DNA is compactly wrapped around the

68: histones. Although full details are still not well understood, it is

69: clear that sequential chemical reactions between the histone molecules

70: and specialized enzymes underlie the modification of the chromatin

71: structure~\cite{FISCHLE2003}. For example, acetylation of the histones

72: leads to a more open chromatin configuration, by changing the local

73: electrostatic equilibrium of the molecular ensemble around where the

74: modification is made, enabling transcription~\cite{SUN2005}. On each histone 

75: protein there are a number of different

76: amino acids sites at which chemical reactions can occur leading to a

77: modification of the histone--DNA geometry. The histone code hypothesis

78: posits that the modifications of the histones provide a code which

79: governs the subsequent chemical processes leading to the remodeling of

80: the chromatin \cite{JENUWEIN2001}.

81: 

82: \begin{figure}[t]

83: \protect\caption{(color online). Dynamics of proteins binding at the pS2 promoter

84:   following administration of estradiol in \mbox{MCF-7} human breast cancer

85:   cells. The proportions of bound pS2

86:   promoters with key transcription factors and cofactors are shown as

87:   a function of time. Based on data from Ref.~\cite{METIVIER2003}.}

88: \label{data}

89: \includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{lemaire_fig1.eps}

90: \end{figure}

91: 

92: Recent experimental studies have demonstrated a

93: cyclic ordered sequence of reactions and alterations of

94: local chromatin structure in human breast cancer cells grown in tissue

95: culture~\cite{METIVIER2003}. The culture of approximately $2 \times

96: 10^6$ cells is initially synchronized. The addition of a hormone,

97: estradiol, induces 40 min oscillations of the transcriptional

98: activation of the pS2 gene, which is a marker gene for estrogenic

99: response. Due to loss of synchronization between the cells, the observed oscillations %%@

100: slowly damp and reach constant levels after 8 hours~\cite{metivierunpub}. A possible %%@

101: source of desynchronization, in addition to stochastic fluctuations at the level of %%@

102: the promoter, could be the variability among the cells, such as ATP levels or cell %%@

103: size. These oscillations are monitored by measuring the temporal

104: association of specific proteins with the DNA measured at time intervals of as short %%@

105: as 5

106: minutes over a 3 hour period~\cite{chipfootnote}. In Fig.~\ref{data}, we show the %%@

107: association profiles of four

108: key proteins involved in the transcriptional activation of gene

109: pS2. Estrogen receptor (ER) binds estradiol and initiates the transcription process. %%@

110: RNA

111: Polymerase~I\hspace{-.06em}I, (Pol~I\hspace{-.06em}I) is a protein

112: complex responsible for the transcription of genes. TRIP1 and HDAC are

113: two different proteins that are involved in the 

114: clearance of the promoter after each

115: transcription cycle. In view of the complexity of the

116: sequence, and the tiny numbers of molecules involved in the binding in

117: each cell, it is currently impossible to derive detailed kinetic data

118: about the rate constants of the individual reactions. Moreover, since

119: it is not clear whether or not the cells are coupled to each other,

120: the mechanism of the synchronization of the oscillation poses a

121: challenge for theoretical interpretation. In this Letter, we propose

122: a simple model for the oscillation based on a large number of

123: sequential chemical reactions and transformations of the chromatin. 

124: Based on the analysis of the model, we are able to predict specific

125: timings of the association of the protein complexes with the chromatin

126: that reproduces the observed dynamics in Fig.~\ref{data}.

127: 

128: We assume that there is a network of proteins interacting together

129: and, sequentially, with the chromatin. Each reaction induces a

130: modification of the substrate complex that in turn enables the next

131: step in the sequence so that the reactions are assumed to be

132: irreversible. 

133: Further, we assume that the various transcription factors and

134: cofactors involved in the reactions are present in sufficiently high

135: concentration that the reaction rates $a_i$ are constant over

136: time. This model is schematized in~Fig.~\ref{sequence}.

137: \begin{figure}[t]

138: \caption{(color online). A schematic diagram of the model by sequential recruitment of

139:   protein molecules to the chromatin.  $x_1$ represents the chromatin

140:   at the pS2 promoter. The $x_i, \,\, 2

141:   \le i \le m$ represent the protein complexes that form successively on

142:   the promoter, at rate $a_i$, leading to the activation of %%@

143: transcription.}\label{sequence}

144: \includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{graphic2b.eps}

145: \end{figure}

146: A key parameter in our model is the number $m$ of sequential steps

147: in the cycle.  Many transcription complexes contain more than 50

148: proteins, which may be partially or completely assembled on the

149: promoter~\cite{refspack}.  Of the order of 100

150: histone (or other proteins) modifications have been identified during

151: transcriptional activation~\cite{LEE2005}. These sequential histone

152: modifications are associated with the histone code for transcriptional

153: activation. Based on these considerations, we estimate that $m$ is at

154: least 200.  From the data in Fig.~\ref{data}, the period of the

155: oscillation $T_0$ is about 40 minutes. If all reaction rates are

156: assumed identical (i.e., $a_i=a$), and choosing $m=200$, then we have

157: $a=m/T_0=5 {\rm min}^{-1}$.

158: 

159: Since, generally, there are only two copies of each gene in each cell,

160: we first consider the dynamics using a stochastic model in which the 

161: probability of a given reaction per unit time is equal 

162: to the product of the rate constant for that reaction and the number 

163: of potential reactants present.  The time steps between reactions obey a Markov %%@

164: process. The

165: results of carrying out the simulation using the Gillespie

166: algorithm~\cite{GILLESPIE1977}, for 1, 10, or 100 cells are shown in

167: Fig.~\ref{sto}A-C. 

168: \begin{figure}[t]

169: \protect\caption{(color online). A-C: Stochastic simulations for 1, 10, or 100 cells.

170: D:~Recruitment curves calculated from~Eq.~(\ref{protein}). These

171: computations are based on the

172: binding sequences given in Fig.~\ref{seq} (see below). 

173: We assume $a_i=5 {\rm min}^{-1}$ and

174: $m=200$.  The color (or grayscale) code is the same as in Fig.~\ref{data}.}

175: \label{sto}

176: \includegraphics*[bb=108 236 502 555,width=\columnwidth]{lemaire_fig3.eps}

177: \end{figure}

178: 

179: The chemical scheme presented in Fig.~\ref{sequence} can be

180: interpreted as a sequential Poisson process in which the duration $t$

181: before the next reaction takes place follows the distribution

182: $p(t)=a\mathrm{e}^{-at}$. Then for any individual cell after synchronization,

183: the $k$-th cycle has a mean starting time of $\frac{km}{a}$ with a

184: variance $\frac{km}{a^2}$. Taking $a=m/T_0$, the starting time of the

185: $k$-th cycle has a variance of $\frac{kT_0^2}{m}$. This suggests the

186: natural desynchronization of the system as the variance increases

187: linearly with $k$. As $m \rightarrow \infty$, the variance vanishes

188: and the system behaves as a delay differential system as discussed in

189: Ref.~\cite{MACDONALD1989}. 

190: Thus, just as in the data in Fig.~\ref{data}, the stochastic system displays %%@

191: oscillations for

192: several cycles provided $m$ is large enough.

193: 

194: In the limit of a large number of cells, the stochastic dynamics can

195: be approximated by the linear differential equations

196: \begin{eqnarray*}

197: \dot{x}_1(t) &=& a_mx_m(t)-a_1x_1(t)\label{model_1}\ ,\\

198: \dot{x}_i(t) &=& a_{i-1}x_{i-1}(t)-a_ix_i(t)\label{model_2}\ , \ \ 2\leq i \leq m.

199: \end{eqnarray*}

200: 

201: In the case $a_i=a$, the eigenvalues $\lambda_k$ of the Jacobian matrix

202: are $\lambda_k=a\ \bigl(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\pi k i}{m}} - 1\bigr),

203: \,1\leq k \leq m$. We can rewrite $\lambda_k$ as $\alpha_k + i\beta_k$, where

204: \begin{equation}

205: \alpha_k = a\ \bigl(\cos\theta_k - 1\bigr), \,\,\beta_k = a\

206: \sin\theta_k,\,\, 1\leq k \leq m\ .

207: \label{eigenvalues2}

208: \end{equation}

209: Here $\theta_k=2k\pi/m$. Since the real parts of the eigenvalues are

210: non-positive, Eqs.~(\ref{model_1})-(\ref{model_2}) do not show

211: sustained oscillations~\cite{HEARON1953}. 

212: 

213: Assuming initial conditions, for the $[x_i]$, of 

214: $[1,0,0,\ldots,0]$, we can compute the solution for all

215: variables:

216: \begin{equation}

217: x_i(t) = \frac{1}{m} \left[  1 +(-1)^i e^{-2 a t} + 2\sum_{k = 1}^{m/2 - 1} %%@

218: e^{\alpha_k t} \cos [\beta_k t - (i-1) \theta_k] \right],\label{exact2}

219: \end{equation}

220: in the case when $m$ is even (a similar expression holds when $m$ is odd). The higher %%@

221: frequency terms decrease

222: rapidly so that for $m=200$, only the first 6 or 7 terms give a

223: significant contribution after the first period.  The leading term %%@

224: $\mathrm{e}^{\alpha_1

225: t}\cos\beta_1 t$ sets the period. From a Taylor expansion of this

226: result, we find that the envelope of the leading term decays as

227: $\mathrm{e}^{-2\pi^2t/mT_0}$, where we set $a=m/T_0$. This result is consistent with %%@

228: the

229: finding that the oscillations are more persistent as the number of

230: steps of the reaction increases. 

231: 

232: We now consider the effect of relaxing several of the unrealistic

233: assumptions in the model. If all reactions are reversible, with all

234: forward rate coefficients equal to $a$ and all backward reaction

235: coefficients equal to $b$, the real and imaginary

236: parts of the eigenvalues are $\alpha_k =

237: (a+b)\bigl(\cos\frac{2k\pi}{m} - 1\bigr)$ and $\beta_k = (a-b)

238: \sin\frac{2k\pi}{m}$.  This leads to an increased damping, and an increase in the %%@

239: oscillatory period that scales as $b/a$ for small $b$

240: in comparison to $a$. Consequently, the main results presented below also hold if the %%@

241: reactions are reversible. A more general discussion on the effects of

242: reversible reactions in chains of linear reaction kinetics is given

243: in Ref.~\cite{SUMMERS1988}.

244: 

245: Since in the biological system, the reaction rates are not identical, we

246: now assume that the forward rates are distributed randomly with probability %%@

247: distribution $Q(a_i)$.  Realizing that the waiting time for each

248: reaction to occur is independent and identically distributed, the

249: $k$-th cycle's starting time has mean and variance, $km \int

250: \frac{Q(x)}{x}dx$ and $km \int\frac{Q(x)}{x^2}dx$, respectively. If, in

251: particular, $Q(a_i)$ is the uniform distribution over the interval

252: $[a(1-d),a(1+d)]$, with $0\leq d\leq 1$, the

253: $k$-th cycle's starting time has mean:

254: \begin{equation}

255: \frac{km}{2ad} \int_{a(1-d)}^{a(1+d)} \frac{dx}{x} = \frac{km}{2ad} \ln %%@

256: \frac{1+d}{1-d}\ ,

257: \end{equation}

258: and variance:

259: \begin{equation}

260: \frac{km}{2ad} \int_{a(1-d)}^{a(1+d)} \frac{dx}{x^2} = \frac{km}{a^2(1-d^2)}\ .

261: \end{equation}

262: Then the mean and variance of the k-th period are, respectively,

263: $\langle T_k\rangle=\langle T\rangle=\frac{m}{2ad} \ln

264: \frac{1+d}{1-d}$ (independent of $k$) and

265: $\sigma_{T_k}^2=\frac{(2k-1)m}{a^2(1-d^2)}$. Thus, on the curve

266: $\langle T\rangle=T_0$, we have the variance

267: $\sigma_{T_k}^2=\frac{4(2k-1){T_0}^2d^2}{m\ln[(1+d)/(1-d)]^2}$,

268: which, again, vanishes as $m\to\infty$. 

269: 

270: The damping of the solutions of

271: \mbox{Eqs.~(\ref{model_1})-(\ref{model_2})} is controlled by the least

272: negative $\alpha_k$'s. Let $a_i = a (1 + \epsilon \omega_i)$ and

273: $\epsilon = \sigma_a/a$, where $\sigma_a$ is the standard deviation of the

274: $a_i$'s.  Assuming that $a_i$ is uniformly distributed in the interval

275: $[a(1-d),a(1+d)]$, we have $\langle a_i\rangle = a$

276: and $\sigma_a=ad/\sqrt{3}$, and then, $\langle \omega_i\rangle = 0$

277: and $\langle \omega_i^2\rangle = 1$. Solving the characteristic

278: equation for successive orders in $\epsilon$, we find that, 

279: to fourth order in $\epsilon$,  

280: $\langle \alpha_k\rangle = a(\cos \theta_k -1)(1+o(\epsilon^4))\ ,$ 

281: which is consistent with numerical results that show negligible

282: dependence of $\langle \alpha_k\rangle$ on $d$. 

283: However, the variance of the $\alpha_k$'s is 

284: $\sigma_{\alpha_k}^2 = \frac{\langle \alpha_k\rangle^2}{m}\epsilon^2+o(\epsilon^4)\ .$

285: This shows that the properties of low damping and synchronization of

286: the oscillation, observed when the $a_i$'s are identical, are conserved in the limit %%@

287: of large $m$ when the rate constants are different. 

288: 

289: We now wish to fit the model to the experimentally observed binding

290: profiles of the proteins in Fig.~\ref{data}.  Each protein is a

291: component of several different $x_i(t)$ complexes, but we do not know

292: a priori which ones.  We call $P_j(t)$ the percentage 

293: of pS2 promoters bound to one or more molecules of protein

294: $j$. Then we have 

295: \begin{equation}

296: \label{protein}

297: P_j(t) =\sum_{i=1}^{m} c_{i,j} x_i (t), 

298: \end{equation} where $c_{i,j}$ is either 0 or 1.  

299: $P_j(t)$ is the quantity measured in ChIP experiments shown in Fig.~\ref{data}. 

300: For each protein $j$, the {\it binding sequence} 

301: $\{c_{i,j}\}$ is determined by doing a least squares

302: minimization of the data to the model. Because the first cycle is produced by a

303: different sequence of chemical steps than the subsequent

304: ones~\cite{METIVIER2003}, we consider only the time points such that

305: $T_0\le t \le 3T_0$. The minimization procedure is done in 2

306: steps: (i) we apply the Nelder-Mead method to minimize the quadratic

307: error, with the constraint that $0\leq c_{i,j}\leq

308: 1$~\cite{NELDER1965}; (ii) we use the values of $c_{i,j}$ obtained in the

309: first step as initial conditions to a method that uses Lagrange

310: multipliers, minimizing again the mean square error. The latter step enables us to %%@

311: generate binary $c_{i,j}$'s. 

312: \begin{figure}[t]

313: \caption{(color online). Binding sequences for the proteins in Fig.~\ref{data}. For %%@

314: each protein, the colored regions indicate the indices $i$ of the complexes $x_i$ of %%@

315: which the protein is a component.}

316: \label{seq}

317: \includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{Graphic4b.eps}

318: \end{figure}

319: The result of that procedure is

320: shown in the Fig.~\ref{seq}, where the colored regions indicate the

321: regions where $c_{i,j}=1$. The $P_j(t)$, for each protein in Fig.~\ref{data}, are %%@

322: plotted in Fig.~\ref{sto}D.

323: To test the robustness of these fitted sequences, we have carried out

324: a number of numerical studies in which we performed fits of the model

325: to the data relaxing several of our assumptions. In particular, we

326: have tested for values of $m=100$, 200, 300 and 400; addition of $\pm

327: 2$\% of noise to the data points (corresponding to the error reported

328: in Ref.~\cite{METIVIER2003}); changes in the vertical scaling of the data

329: (up to 1.4); and selection of random reaction rates $a_i$ (provided that the

330: period, for the selection of $\{a_i\}$, is close to $T_0$, and the solutions not too %%@

331: damped). 

332: Although there can be slight changes in the values of $i$ where

333: $c_{i,j}=1$, or, in some circumstances, a change in the number of blocks in which

334: $c_{i,j}=1$, the main pattern of the $c_{i,j}$'s in

335: Fig.~\ref{seq} remain unchanged. 

336: 

337: The results in Fig.~\ref{seq}, in which the precise patterns of

338: association of each protein are obtained, represent the main predictions of the %%@

339: current work. Although one might have 

340: anticipated that there would be a single recruitment block for each

341: protein, the recruitment patterns for proteins considered here 

342: may actually occur in two or more blocks. 

343: Two experimental methods can be used currently to determine the dynamics of %%@

344: transcription: ChIP assays and fluorescence microscopy-based assays, but these methods %%@

345: seem to produce conflicting results~\cite{HAGER2004}. Our theoretical predictions must %%@

346: be viewed in perspective of these two experimental methods. ChIP assays determine the %%@

347: binding of promoters with specific proteins, but not at the level of one promoter in a %%@

348: single cell. In contrast, fluorescence microscopy assays determine the mobility of %%@

349: proteins around individual promoters, but does not measure binding of individual %%@

350: proteins to one promoter. Using ChIP data, our model enables us to predict successive %%@

351: rounds of protein binding and unbinding.  The protein mobility indicated by these %%@

352: multiple binding events, corroborates the observations from fluorescence microscopy %%@

353: assays, reconciling the observations from the two experimental methods. Due to lack of %%@

354: precision at the scale of the isolated promoter, the experimental verification of our %%@

355: findings is currently impossible. However, these results can be correlated with what %%@

356: is known about the biological system. For example, five or six principal complexes, %%@

357: with well-defined functions, are successively formed on the promoter of %%@

358: pS2~\cite{METIVIER2003}. It has been conjectured that the assembling of these %%@

359: complexes is orchestrated by ER at different timings of the %%@

360: cycle~\cite{METIVIER2003,LEE2005}. Our finding of five different binding times of ER %%@

361: matches perfectly that conjecture.

362: 

363: To summarize, we have proposed a simple model for the oscillation observed in protein %%@

364: association and dissociation during transcriptional activation in human cells. We have %%@

365: shown that the model produces oscillations with minimal damping for large values of %%@

366: $m$. Further, these properties are conserved when the reaction rates are selected %%@

367: randomly. The current work demonstrates that realistic network architecture models may %%@

368: not be needed in order to unravel the

369: mechanisms of complex reaction sequences at the subcellular level. Our approach relies %%@

370: rather on

371: the finding that synchronous dynamics of protein assembly emerge as a consequence of %%@

372: the large number of intermediate reactions. Our methods should be useful to other %%@

373: systems in which many sequential steps take place but the detailed kinetics are not %%@

374: known. Fitting the model to the data in Fig.~\ref{data} 

375: resulted in predicted sequences at a time resolution not possible

376: experimentally and, as such, may be invaluable for experimental 

377: design and for interpretation of the mechanisms underlying

378: transcriptional 

379: activation. 

380: 

381: \vskip.5in

382: This research has been partially supported by NSERC. We thank Dr. John

383: White and Luz Tavera Mendoza, McGill University for helpful

384: conversations. CFL thanks University College (Oxford) for financial

385: support. 

386: \\

387: \\

388: \small{$^*$The first two authors have contributed equally to the present work.\\

389: Corresponding author: Vincent Lemaire (lemaire@cnd.mcgill.ca)}

390: \begin{thebibliography}{19}

391: \bibitem{networks}  H. Bolouri and E. H. Davidson, \textbf{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. %%@

392: U.S.A.} {\bf 100}, 9371 (2003);

393: M. C. Lagomarsino, P. Jona, and B. Bassetti, \textbf{Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 95}, %%@

394: 158701 (2005).

395: 

396: \bibitem{prokaryotes}

397: N. E. Buchler, U. Gerland, and T. Hwa, \textbf{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.} %%@

398: \textbf{100}, 5136 (2003);

399: J. M. G. Vilar and L. Saiz, \textbf{Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.} \textbf{15}, 136 (2005).

400: 

401: 

402: \bibitem{eukaryotes}

403: A. Benecke, \textbf{Complexus} \textbf{1}, 65 (2003);

404: P. Paszek, T. Lipniacki, A. R. Brasier, B. Tian, D. E. Nowak, and M. Kimmel, %%@

405: \textbf{J. Theor. Biol.} \textbf{233}, 423 (2005).

406: 

407: \bibitem{FISCHLE2003}

408: W. Fischle, Y. Wang, and C. Allis, \textbf{Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.} \textbf{15}, 172 %%@

409: (2003).

410: 

411: 

412: 

413: \bibitem{SUN2005}

414: J. Sun, Q. Zhang, and T. Schlick, \textbf{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.} \textbf{102}, %%@

415: 8180 (2005).

416: 

417: 

418: 

419: \bibitem{JENUWEIN2001}

420: T. Jenuwein and C. D. Allis, \textbf{Science} \textbf{293}, 1074 (2001).

421: 

422: 

423: 

424: \bibitem{METIVIER2003}

425: R. M\'{e}tivier, G. Penot, M. R. Hubner, G. Reid, H. Brand, M. Kos, and F. Gannon, %%@

426: \textbf{Cell} \textbf{115}, 751 (2003).

427: 

428: 

429: \bibitem{metivierunpub}

430: R. M\'{e}tivier et al. (unpublished).

431: 

432: 

433: \bibitem{chipfootnote} 

434: The association is monitored using chromatin immunoprecipitation assay (ChIP) and %%@

435: quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This allows the isolation and %%@

436: identification of proteins that are bound to a specific region of the DNA.

437: 

438: 

439: \bibitem{refspack}

440: R. Roeder, \textbf{FEBS Lett.} \textbf{579}, 909 (2005);

441: Z. Ma et al., \textbf{Mol. Cell. Biol.} \textbf{24}, 5496 (2004).

442: 

443: 

444: \bibitem{LEE2005}

445: D. Y. Lee, C. Teyssier, B. D. Strahl, and M. Stallcup, \textbf{Endocrine Rev.} %%@

446: \textbf{26}, 147 (2005).

447: 

448: 

449: \bibitem{GILLESPIE1977}

450: D. T. Gillespie, \textbf{J. Phys. Chem.} \textbf{81}, 2340 (1977).

451: 

452: 

453: \bibitem{MACDONALD1989}

454: N. MacDonald, \emph{Biological Delay Systems: Linear Stability Theory} (Cambridge %%@

455: University Press, Cambridge, England, 1989);

456: I. R. Epstein, \textbf{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{92}, 1702 (1990).

457: 

458: 

459: \bibitem{HEARON1953}

460: J. Z. Hearon, \textbf{Bull. Math. Biophys.} \textbf{15}, 121 (1953).

461: 

462: 

463: \bibitem{SUMMERS1988}

464: D. Summers and J. M. W. Scott, \textbf{Math. Computer Modelling} \textbf{10}, 901 %%@

465: (1988).

466: 

467: 

468: \bibitem{NELDER1965}

469: J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, \textbf{Computer J.} \textbf{7}, 308 (1965). 

470: 

471: 

472: \bibitem{HAGER2004}

473: G. L. Hager, A. K. Nagaich, T. A. Johnson, D. A. Walker, and S. John, \textbf{Biochim. %%@

474: Biophys. Acta} \textbf{1677}, 46 (2004).

475: 

476: 

477: \end{thebibliography}

478: 

479: \end{document}

480: 

481: