1: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,aps,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \include{epsf}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Stochastic Simulations of Genetic Switch Systems}
8:
9: \author{Adiel Loinger$^1$, Azi Lipshtat$^2$,
10: Nathalie Q. Balaban$^1$ and Ofer Biham$^1$
11: }
12: \affiliation{
13: $^1$ Racah Institute of Physics,
14: The Hebrew University,
15: Jerusalem 91904,
16: Israel
17: \\
18: $^2$ Department of Pharmacology and Biological Chemistry,
19: Mount Sinai \\ School of Medicine,
20: New York, NY 10029, USA
21: }
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24:
25: Genetic switch systems with mutual repression of two
26: transcription factors are studied using deterministic
27: methods (rate equations)
28: and
29: stochastic methods
30: (the master equation
31: and Monte Carlo simulations).
32: These systems exhibit bistability, namely
33: two stable states such that
34: spontaneous transitions between them are rare.
35: Induced transitions may take place as a
36: result of an external stimulus.
37: We study several variants of the genetic
38: switch and examine the effects
39: of cooperative binding, exclusive binding, protein-protein
40: interactions and degradation of bound repressors.
41: We identify the range of parameters
42: in which bistability takes place, enabling the system
43: to function as a switch.
44: Numerous studies have concluded
45: that cooperative binding is
46: a necessary condition for the emergence of bistability
47: in these systems.
48: We show that a suitable combination of network structure and
49: stochastic effects gives rise to bistability even
50: without cooperative binding.
51: The average time between spontaneous transitions is evaluated
52: as a function of the biological parameters.
53:
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \pacs{87.10.+e,87.16.-b}
57:
58: \maketitle
59:
60: \section{Introduction}
61: \label{Introduction}
62:
63: Recent advances in quantitative measurements
64: of gene expression at the single-cell level
65: \cite{Elowitz2002,Ozbudak2002}
66: have brought new insight on the importance
67: of stochastic fluctuations
68: in genetic circuits
69: \cite{Mcadams1997}.
70: The role of fluctuations is enhanced due to
71: the discrete nature of the transcription factors
72: and their binding sites, which may appear in low copy numbers
73: \cite{Becskei2000,Kaern2005}.
74: As a result,
75: populations of genetically identical cells may
76: show significant variability.
77: Stochastic behavior
78: may invoke oscillations
79: \cite{Vilar2002}
80: and spatio-temporal patterns
81: \cite{Shnerb2000},
82: which are unaccounted for by
83: macroscopic chemical rate equations.
84: Genetic circuits with
85: feedback mechanisms may exhibit bistability,
86: namely, two distinct stable states which
87: can be switched by an external
88: signal
89: \cite{Atkinson2003}.
90: A low rate of spontaneous switching events
91: may also take place.
92: To qualify as a switch, this rate
93: must be much lower than the rates of the relevant
94: processes in the cell, namely transcription, translation,
95: and degradation of transcription factors.
96: Genetic switches, such as the
97: phage $\lambda$ switch,
98: give rise to different cell fates
99: \cite{Ptashne1992}.
100: In this switch, $\lambda$
101: phages infect {\it E. coli} bacteria and
102: can exist in two exclusive states,
103: one called
104: lysogeny
105: and the other called
106: lysis.
107: When the phage enters its host, it integrates itself into the
108: host's DNA and is duplicated by cell division.
109: It codes for proteins that can identify stress in the host cell.
110: In case of stress, the phage transforms into the lysis state.
111: In this state, it kills the host cell, using its DNA to produce
112: many copies of the phage, which are released and later infect other
113: cells.
114: Other switch circuits exist in the metabolic systems of cells.
115: These switches determine which type of sugar the cell will digest
116: \cite{Lewis2005}.
117: The genetic switch may also serve as a memory unit of the cell,
118: and help determine its fate during cell differentiation.
119:
120: Recent advances enable the construction of genetic circuits
121: with desired properties, that are determined by the network
122: architecture.
123: These networks are constructed from available components, namely
124: genes and promoters. They do not require the manipulation of the
125: structure of proteins and other regulatory elements at the
126: molecular level.
127: These genes and promoters are often inserted into plasmids
128: rather than on the chromosome.
129: A synthetic toggle switch, that consists of two repressible promoters
130: with mutual negative regulation,
131: was constructed in {\it E. coli} and the conditions for bistability
132: were examined
133: \cite{Gardner2000}.
134: The switching between its two states was demonstrated using
135: chemical and thermal induction.
136: More recently, such circuit was found to exist in a natural
137: system in which two mutual repressors regulate
138: the differentiation of myeloid progenitors
139: into either macrophages or neutrophils
140: \cite{Laslo2006}.
141:
142: In this paper we analyze
143: the genetic toggle switch using deterministic and stochastic methods.
144: In this simple genetic circuit,
145: two proteins, $A$ and $B$,
146: negatively regulate each other's synthesis.
147: The regulation is performed at the transcription level, namely
148: the production of protein $A$ is
149: negatively regulated by protein $B$,
150: through binding of $n$ copies of $B$
151: to the $A$ promoter (and vice versa).
152: This process can be
153: modeled by a Hill function, which
154: reduces the production rate of
155: $A$
156: by a factor of
157: $1+k[B]^n$,
158: where
159: $[B]$
160: is the concentration of $B$ proteins
161: in the cell,
162: $k$ is a parameter and
163: $n$ is the Hill coefficient
164: \cite{Hill}.
165: In case that $n=1$,
166: the binding of a single protein is
167: sufficient in order to perform the negative regulation, while
168: for $n>1$ the {\it cooperative binding} of two or more
169: proteins is required.
170:
171: One may expect this circuit to function as a switch,
172: with two stable states, one dominated by $A$ proteins
173: and the other dominated by $B$ proteins.
174: When the population of $A$ proteins is larger than the population of $B$
175: proteins, the $A$ proteins suppress the production of $B$
176: proteins. Under these conditions,
177: the production of $A$ proteins will not be suppressed
178: much by the small $B$ population.
179: Therefore, the system approaches a state
180: rich in $A$ proteins and poor in $B$ proteins.
181: Similarly, the system may approach a state rich
182: in $B$ proteins and poor
183: in $A$ proteins.
184:
185: To qualify as a switch, the system should be
186: bistable.
187: In the deterministic description, bistability is defined
188: as the existence of two stable steady state solutions
189: of the rate equations.
190: This description does not account for the possibility of
191: spontaneous transitions between the two states.
192: In the stochastic description, spontaneous transitions
193: do take place. Therefore, the condition for bistability
194: is that the rate of
195: spontaneous switching events
196: (due to random fluctuations rather than
197: an external signal)
198: is much lower than the rates of
199: all other relevant processes
200: in the system.
201:
202: Rate equations provide the average concentrations of $A$ and $B$
203: proteins in a population of cells.
204: In these equations, bistability emerges at a bifurcation
205: point, where two stable states emerge.
206: Rate equations do not include fluctuations and do
207: not account for the possibility of spontaneous transitions
208: between the two states.
209: The master equation provides the probability distribution
210: of the populations of $A$ and $B$ proteins.
211: The two bistable states appear as two distinct peaks
212: in this distribution.
213: Monte Carlo simulations enable to follow the fluctuations
214: in a single cell and to evaluate the rate of spontaneous
215: switching events.
216:
217: We examine the conditions for the system to become
218: a switch, and
219: calculate the rate of spontaneous transitions between its
220: two states.
221: This is done for several variants of the toggle switch.
222: In particular,
223: we focus on switch systems in which the repression in done
224: without cooperative binding (namely, $n=1$).
225: Numerous studies have concluded,
226: using rate equations,
227: that cooperative binding is
228: a necessary condition for the emergence of bistability
229: \cite{Gardner2000,Cherry2000,Warren2004,Warren2005,Walczak2005}.
230: Below we show,
231: using a combination of deterministic and stochastic simulation methods,
232: that this is not the
233: case, namely a bistable switch can exist even in
234: the absence of cooperative binding.
235: In particular, we show that bound-repressor degradation (BRD)
236: and protein-protein interactions (PPI)
237: give rise to bistability,
238: without cooperative binding,
239: even at the level of rate equations.
240: These results are confirmed by stochastic simulations using
241: the master equation and Monte Carlo methods.
242: We also consider the exclusive switch,
243: in which the $A$ and $B$ repressors cannot be bound simultaneously
244: due to overlap between their promoter sites.
245: This system
246: exhibits bistability only when
247: stochastic fluctuations are taken into account.
248: The rate of spontaneous transitions between the two states
249: is calculated as a function of the biological parameters.
250:
251: The paper is organized as follows.
252: In Sec.
253: \ref{sec:general}
254: we consider the basic version called the general switch.
255: Several variants of this circuit are considered in the
256: Sections that follow.
257: The exclusive switch is studied in
258: Sec.
259: \ref{sec:exclusive},
260: the BRD switch is considered in
261: Sec.
262: \ref{sec:BRD}
263: and the PPI switch is analyzed in
264: Sec.
265: \ref{sec:PPI}.
266: The effects of cooperative binding are studied in
267: Sec.
268: \ref{sec:cooperative}.
269: The response of toggle switch systems to external
270: signals is examined in
271: Sec.
272: \ref{sec:response}.
273: The results are discussed in
274: Sec.
275: \ref{sec:discussion}
276: and summarized in
277: Sec.
278: \ref{sec:summary}.
279:
280: \section{The General Switch (Without Cooperative Binding)}
281: \label{sec:general}
282:
283: The general switch consists of two transcription factors,
284: $A$ and $B$, that negatively regulate each other's
285: synthesis
286: \cite{Warren2004,Warren2005}.
287: A schematic description of
288: this circuit is given in
289: Fig. \ref{fig1}(a).
290: The regulation is done by the binding of a protein to
291: the promoter site of the other gene, blocking the access
292: of the RNA polymerase and suppressing the transcription
293: process.
294: In this circuit there is no cooperative binding, namely
295: the regulation process is performed by a single bound
296: protein.
297:
298: The concentrations of free $A$ and $B$ proteins in the cell
299: are denoted by $[A]$ and $[B]$, respectively (by concentration
300: we mean the average copy number of proteins per cell).
301: The copy numbers of the bound proteins, are denoted by
302: $[r_A]$ and $[r_B]$,
303: where $r_A$ is a bound $A$ protein that monitors the production of $B$,
304: while $r_B$ is a bound $B$ protein that monitors the production of $A$.
305: Note that there is at most one bound repressor of each type at any
306: given time, and thus
307: $0 \le r_A,r_B \le 1$.
308: For simplicity, we ignore the mRNA level and combine the
309: processes of transcription and translation as a single
310: step of synthesis
311: \cite{mRNA}.
312:
313: The maximal production rate of protein $X$ is denoted by
314: $g_X$ (s$^{-1}$), $X=A,B$.
315: The degradation rate of protein $X$ is given by
316: $d_X$ (s$^{-1}$).
317: While the structure of the circuits studied here
318: is symmetric,
319: the rate constants can be different for $A$ and $B$.
320: However, for simplicity we use symmetric parameters,
321: i.e. $g=g_A=g_B$ and $d=d_A=d_B$.
322: The binding rate of proteins to the promoter
323: is denoted by $\alpha_0$ (s$^{-1}$)
324: and the dissociation rate
325: by $\alpha_1$ (s$^{-1}$).
326:
327: \subsection{Rate Equations}
328:
329: The dynamics of the general switch circuit
330: is described by the rate equations
331: \cite{Lipshtat2005,Lipshtat2006}
332:
333: \begin{eqnarray}
334: \dot{[A]} &=& g_A (1-[r_B]) - d_A [A]-
335: \alpha_0 [A] \left (1-[r_A] \right) + \alpha_1[r_A] \nonumber \\
336: \dot{[B]} &=& g_B(1-[r_A])-d_B[B]-
337: \alpha_0[B]\left(1-[r_B]\right)+\alpha_1[r_B] \nonumber \\
338: \dot{[r_A]} &=& \alpha_0[A]\left(1-[r_A]\right)-\alpha_1[r_A] \nonumber \\
339: \dot{[r_B]} &=& \alpha_0[B]\left(1-[r_B]\right)-\alpha_1[r_B].
340: \label{eq:general_switch_rate}
341: \end{eqnarray}
342:
343: \noindent
344: It is commonly assumed that the
345: binding-unbinding processes
346: are much faster than other
347: processes in the circuit, namely
348: $\alpha_0,\alpha_1 \gg d_X,g_X$.
349: This means that the relaxation times of $[r_X]$
350: are much shorter than other relaxation
351: times in the circuit.
352: Under this assumption,
353: one can take the
354: time derivatives of $[r_X]$
355: to zero, even if the system is away from
356: steady state.
357: This brings the rate equations to the
358: standard Michaelis-Menten form
359:
360: %
361: \begin{eqnarray}
362: \dot{[A]} &=& \frac{g}{1+k[B]} - d [A] \nonumber \\
363: \dot{[B]} &=& \frac{g}{1+k[A]} - d [B],
364: \label{eq:general_switch_michaelis_menten}
365: \end{eqnarray}
366:
367: \noindent
368: where symmetric parameters are used, and
369: $k=\alpha_0/\alpha_1$
370: is the repression strength.
371: For a given population of free $X$ repressors,
372: the parameter $k$ controls the value of $[r_X]$.
373: The limit of weak repression,
374: $[r_X] \ll 1$,
375: is obtained when
376: $k[X] \ll 1$,
377: while the limit of strong repression,
378: $[r_X] \simeq 1$,
379: is obtained for
380: $k[X] \gg 1$.
381:
382: The meaning of bistability at the level of rate equations is
383: that at steady state the equations exhibit two distinct positive
384: solutions.
385: In this particular class of circuits,
386: one solution is dominated by $A$ proteins and the other
387: is dominated by $B$ proteins.
388: Starting from any initial state, the system will converge
389: to one of these solutions.
390: The solutions are stable, so the possibility of spontaneous
391: transitions, induced by stochastic fluctuations,
392: is not included in the rate equation description.
393:
394: The steady state solutions of Eqs.
395: (\ref{eq:general_switch_rate})
396: and
397: (\ref{eq:general_switch_michaelis_menten})
398: are identical.
399: We will now show that
400: these equations have only one positive steady-state solution.
401: To this end, we first
402: take $\dot{[A]}=\dot{[B]}=0$
403: in Eq.
404: (\ref{eq:general_switch_michaelis_menten}).
405: We multiply each equation by the denominator
406: of the Hill function that appears in it.
407: We obtain:
408:
409: \begin{eqnarray}
410: g - d[A] - kd[A][B] &=& 0 \nonumber \\
411: g - d[B] - kd[A][B] &=& 0.
412: \label{eq:general_switch_hill1}
413: \end{eqnarray}
414:
415: \noindent
416: Subtracting one equation from the other we get
417: $d([A]-[B])=0$
418: and therefore
419: $[A]$ must be equal to $[B]$ at steady state.
420: The steady state values of
421: $[A]$ and $[B]$ can be easily found.
422: Inserting
423: $[A]=[B]$ into
424: Eq.~(\ref{eq:general_switch_hill1})
425: we obtain a quadratic equation
426: whose only positive solution is
427:
428: \begin{equation}
429: [A] = [B] = \frac {-1+\sqrt{1+4kg/d}}{2k}.
430: \end{equation}
431:
432: \noindent
433: Standard linear stability analysis shows that
434: this solution is always stable.
435:
436: As a result, we conclude that at the level of rate equations
437: the general switch, without cooperative binding,
438: does not exhibit bistability.
439: In Sec.
440: \ref{sec:cooperative}
441: we consider the case of cooperative binding, where
442: the rate equations do exhibit bistability.
443:
444: \subsection{Master Equation}
445:
446: In order to account for stochastic effects
447: and to obtain insight on
448: the reason that this system is not bistable,
449: the master equation approach is applied
450: \cite{Mcadams1997,Arkin1998,Kepler2001,Paulsson2000,Paulsson2004}.
451: In this case, we consider
452: the probability distribution function
453: $P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)$.
454: It is the probability for a cell to
455: include $N_X$ copies of free protein $X$
456: and $r_X$ copies of the bound $X$ repressor,
457: where $N_X=0,1,2,\dots$,
458: and $r_X = 0,1$.
459: The master equation for the general switch takes the form
460:
461: \begin{eqnarray}
462: && \dot{P}(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B) =
463: g_{\rm A} \delta_{r_B,0}
464: [P(N_A-1,N_B,r_A,r_B) - P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)] \nonumber\\
465: && + g_{\rm B} \delta_{r_A,0}
466: [P(N_A,N_B-1,r_A,r_B) - P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)] \nonumber\\
467: && + d_{\rm A} [(N_A+1) P(N_A+1,N_B,r_A,r_B) - N_A P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)]
468: \nonumber\\
469: && + d_{\rm B} [(N_B+1) P(N_A,N_B+1,r_A,r_B) - N_B P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)]
470: \nonumber\\
471: && + \alpha_0 [(N_A+1) \delta_{r_A,1} P(N_A+1,N_B,r_A-1,r_B) -
472: N_A \delta_{r_A,0} P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)] \nonumber\\
473: && + \alpha_0 [(N_B+1) \delta_{r_B,1} P(N_A,N_B+1,r_A,r_B-1) -
474: N_B \delta_{r_B,0} P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)] \nonumber\\
475: && + \alpha_1 [\delta_{r_A,0} P(N_A-1,N_B,r_A+1,r_B) -
476: \delta_{r_A,1} P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)] \nonumber\\
477: && + \alpha_1 [\delta_{r_B,0} P(N_A,N_B-1,r_A,r_B+1) -
478: \delta_{r_B,1} P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)],
479: \label{eq:general_switch_master}
480: \end{eqnarray}
481:
482: \noindent
483: where
484: $\delta_{i,j}=1$ for $i=j$ and $0$ otherwise.
485: The $g_X$ terms account for the production of proteins.
486: The $d_X$ terms account for the degradation of free proteins,
487: while the $\alpha_0$ ($\alpha_1$) terms describe the
488: binding (unbinding) of proteins to (from) the promoter site.
489: In numerical integration, the master equation must be truncated
490: in order to keep the number of equations finite.
491: This is done by setting suitable upper cutoffs,
492: $N_{\rm A}^{\rm max}$ and $N_{\rm B}^{\rm max}$,
493: on the populations sizes of free proteins.
494: In order to maintain the accuracy of the calculations,
495: the probability of population sizes beyond the cutoffs
496: must be sufficiently small.
497:
498: The master equation has a single steady state solution,
499: which is always stable
500: \cite{VanKampen1992}.
501: The criterion for bistability
502: is that the steady state solution
503: $P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)$
504: exhibits two distinct regions (peaks) of high
505: probabilities,
506: separated by a gap in which the probabilities are very small.
507: These two regions correspond to the two
508: states in which the system is likely to be.
509: %Although this is a steady state solution of the master equation, the
510: %system can still move from state to state.
511: If the transition rate between the peaks
512: is small enough,
513: the system is indeed a bistable switch.
514: Note, that in this case, averages of the form
515:
516: \begin{equation}
517: \langle N_{\rm X} \rangle =
518: \sum_{N_{\rm A}=0}^{N_{\rm A}^{\rm max}}
519: \sum_{N_{\rm B}=0}^{N_{\rm B}^{\rm max}}
520: \sum_{r_{\rm A}=0}^1
521: \sum_{r_{\rm B}=0}^1
522: N_{\rm X} P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B),
523: \label{eq:averagex}
524: \end{equation}
525:
526: \noindent
527: where $X=A$, $B$,
528: do not reflect the complex structure of the
529: probability distribution.
530: These can be considered as averages over many
531: cells, some dominated by $A$ and others dominated by $B$
532: proteins, such that the total populations of the two species
533: are about the same.
534:
535: To examine
536: the existence of bistability we consider
537: the marginal probability distribution
538:
539: \begin{equation}
540: P(N_A,N_B) =
541: \sum_{r_{\rm A}=0}^1
542: \sum_{r_{\rm B}=0}^1
543: P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B).
544: \end{equation}
545: \noindent
546:
547: \noindent
548: This probability distribution was calculated
549: for a broad range of parameters.
550: Two representative examples are shown in
551: Fig. \ref{fig2}.
552:
553: Under conditions of weak repression (small k),
554: $P(N_A,N_B)$
555: exhibits a single peak for which
556: $N_A \approx N_B \approx g/d$
557: [Fig. \ref{fig2}(a)],
558: in agreement with the rate equations.
559: This is due to the fact that the
560: repression is weak, and the
561: $A$ and $B$ populations are almost uncorrelated.
562: In this case, the cell will contain roughly the same
563: amount of $A$ and $B$ proteins.
564:
565: For strong repression, the distribution $P(N_A,N_B)$
566: exhibits a peak dominated by $A$ proteins
567: and a peak dominated by $B$ proteins,
568: as expected for a bistable system.
569: However, a third peak appears near the origin,
570: in which both populations of free proteins
571: are suppressed
572: [Fig. \ref{fig2}(b)].
573: This peak represents a dead-lock situation, caused by the
574: fact that both $A$ and $B$ repressors can be bound
575: simultaneously, each bringing to a halt the production of the other specie.
576: The third peak provides a corridor through which the probability can
577: flow between the other two peaks.
578: As a result, the system can quickly switch between the
579: $A$-dominated and the $B$-dominated states.
580:
581:
582: In addition to the solution of the master equation,
583: Monte Carlo simulations
584: have been performed.
585: In these simulations one can follow the time evolution
586: of the populations of free and bound proteins
587: in a single cell.
588: In
589: Fig. \ref{fig3}(a)
590: we present the population sizes of free proteins vs. time
591: for the general switch.
592: It is clear that the cell can indeed
593: be in one of three states: a state rich in $A$,
594: a state rich in $B$ and a state
595: in which both proteins are in very low copy numbers.
596: We conclude that a necessary condition for the system to become a switch
597: is to prevent this dead-lock situation in which both protein
598: populations are suppressed simultaneously.
599: Below we present several
600: variants of the circuit in which the third peak is suppressed,
601: giving rise to a bistable switch.
602:
603:
604: \section{The Exclusive Switch}
605: \label{sec:exclusive}
606:
607: The first variant we consider is the exclusive switch,
608: depicted in
609: Fig.~\ref{fig1}(b).
610: In this circuit
611: there is an overlap between the promoters
612: of $A$ and $B$.
613: As a result, there is
614: no room for both
615: $A$ and $B$ proteins to be bound
616: simultaneously.
617: Exclusive binding is encountered in nature,
618: for example, in the
619: lysis-lysogeny switch of phage $\lambda$
620: \cite{Ptashne1992}.
621:
622: It was shown that
623: in presence of cooperative binding,
624: the exclusive switch is more stable than
625: the general switch
626: \cite{Warren2004,Warren2005}.
627: This is because in the exclusive switch the access of the
628: minority proteins to the promoter site is blocked by the
629: dominant proteins.
630: Here we show that in the exclusive switch,
631: stochastic effects give rise to bistability even
632: without cooperativity between the transcription factors.
633: The dead-lock situation in prevented in this case, since
634: $A$ and $B$
635: repressors cannot be bound simultaneously.
636:
637: \subsection{Rate Equations}
638:
639: To model
640: the exclusive switch,
641: recall that the variable
642: $[r_A]$ ($[r_B]$)
643: is actually the fraction of
644: time in which the promoter
645: is occupied by a bound $A$ ($B$) protein
646: \cite{Lipshtat2005}.
647: The fraction of time in which the promoter is vacant is
648: thus
649: $1 - [r_A] - [r_B]$.
650: Incorporating this into
651: Eq.~(\ref{eq:general_switch_rate})
652: gives rise to the following modification:
653: in the $\alpha_0$ terms,
654: each appearance of $[r_A]$ or $[r_B]$
655: should be replaced by $[r_A]+[r_B]$.
656: With this modification, the rate equations take
657: the form
658:
659: \begin{eqnarray}
660: \dot{[A]} &=& g (1-[r_B]) - d [A]-
661: \alpha_0 [A] \left (1-[r_A]-[r_B] \right)
662: + \alpha_1 [r_A] \nonumber \\
663: \dot{[B]} &=& g (1-[r_A]) - d [B] -
664: \alpha_0 [B]\left(1-[r_A]-[r_B] \right)
665: +\alpha_1 [r_B] \nonumber \\
666: \dot{[r_A]} &=& \alpha_0 [A]
667: \left(1- [r_A] - [r_B] \right)-\alpha_1 [r_A] \nonumber \\
668: \dot{[r_B]} &=& \alpha_0 [B]
669: \left(1- [r_A] - [r_B] \right)-\alpha_1 [r_B].
670: \label{eq:exclusive_rate}
671: \end{eqnarray}
672:
673: \noindent
674: Under steady state conditions, the rate equations can be reduced
675: to the Michaelis-Menten form
676:
677: \begin{eqnarray}
678: \dot{[A]} &=& \frac{g}{1+{k[B]/(1+k[A])}} - d[A] \nonumber \\
679: \dot{[B]} &=& \frac{g}{1+{k[A]/(1+k[B])}} - d[B],
680: \label{eq:exclusive_michaelis_menten}
681: \end{eqnarray}
682:
683: \noindent
684: where, as before, $k=\alpha_0/\alpha_1$.
685: We will now show that even for the case of the
686: exclusive switch, the rate equations still exhibit
687: a single solution, thus there is no bistability.
688: This is done by
689: taking $\dot{[A]}=\dot{[B]}=0$ and getting rid of the
690: denominators, by repeated multiplications.
691: The resulting equations are
692:
693: \begin{eqnarray}
694: g + (kg- d) [A] -kd[A] ([A]+[B]) &=& 0 \nonumber \\
695: g + (kg- d) [B] -kd[B] ([A]+[B]) &=& 0.
696: \label{Brep2}
697: \end{eqnarray}
698:
699: \noindent
700: By subtraction of one equation from the other,
701: we find that
702:
703: \begin{equation}
704: \{kg-d - kd ([A]+[B])\}([A]-[B]) = 0.
705: \label{Brep3}
706: \end{equation}
707:
708: \noindent
709: The positive, symmetric solution, $[A]=[B]$, is given by
710:
711: \begin{equation}
712: [A] = \frac{(kg-d) + \sqrt{(kg+d)^2 +4kgd}}{4kd}.
713: \end{equation}
714:
715: \noindent
716: The other, non-symmetric solution, given by
717:
718: \begin{equation}
719: kg-d -kd ([A]+[B]) = 0
720: \label{eq:nonsymmsol}
721: \end{equation}
722:
723: \noindent
724: is inconsistent with
725: Eq.~(\ref{Brep2})
726: unless $g=0$,
727: namely there is no production of $A$ and $B$ proteins,
728: which immediately leads to $[A]=[B]=0$.
729: Under these conditions the solution of Eq.
730: (\ref{eq:nonsymmsol})
731: is
732: $[A]+[B]=-1/k$, which requires a negative population size
733: and thus makes no physical sense.
734: Therefore, the only solution for $g>0$
735: is the symmetric solution, $[A]=[B]$.
736: Thus, the rate equations do not support a bistable
737: solution for the exclusive switch for any choice
738: of the parameters.
739:
740: \subsection{Master Equation}
741:
742: To account for the effects of fluctuations,
743: we now describe the exclusive switch using
744: the master equation.
745: It is similar to to master equation
746: for the general switch given by
747: Eq.~(\ref{eq:general_switch_master}),
748: except for the following modifications:
749: (a) In the $\alpha_0$ and $\alpha_1$ terms,
750: each time $\delta_{r_A,j}$ ($\delta_{r_B,j}$),
751: $j=0,1$,
752: appears it should be multiplied by
753: $\delta_{r_B,0}$, ($\delta_{r_A,0}$);
754: (b) The constraint
755: $P(N_A,N_B,1,1)=0$ should be imposed.
756: Implementing these changes we obtain the following equation:
757:
758: \begin{eqnarray}
759: \label{eq:exclusive_switch_master}
760: && \dot{P}(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B) =
761: g_{\rm A} \delta_{r_B,0}
762: [P(N_A-1,N_B,r_A,r_B) - P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)] \nonumber\\
763: && + g_{\rm B} \delta_{r_A,0}
764: [P(N_A,N_B-1,r_A,r_B) - P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)] \nonumber\\
765: && + d_{\rm A} [(N_A+1) P(N_A+1,N_B,r_A,r_B)
766: - N_A P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)] \nonumber\\
767: && + d_{\rm B} [(N_B+1) P(N_A,N_B+1,r_A,r_B)
768: - N_B P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)] \nonumber\\
769: && + \alpha_0 \delta_{r_B,0}
770: [(N_A+1)
771: \delta_{r_A,1}
772: P(N_A+1,N_B,r_A-1,r_B) -
773: N_A \delta_{r_A,0}
774: P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)]
775: \nonumber\\
776: && + \alpha_0 \delta_{r_A,0}
777: [(N_B+1) \delta_{r_B,1} P(N_A,N_B+1,r_A,r_B-1) -
778: N_B \delta_{r_B,0} P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)]
779: \nonumber\\
780: && + \alpha_1 [\delta_{r_A,0} P(N_A-1,N_B,r_A+1,r_B) -
781: \delta_{r_A,1} P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)] \nonumber\\
782: && + \alpha_1 [\delta_{r_B,0} P(N_A,N_B-1,r_A,r_B+1) -
783: \delta_{r_B,1} P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)].
784: \end{eqnarray}
785:
786: \noindent
787: For the exclusive switch, as for the general switch,
788: under conditions of weak repression,
789: $P(N_A,N_B)$ exhibits a single peak
790: [Fig. \ref{fig4}(a)]
791: that satisfies $N_A \approx N_B \approx g/d$.
792: However, as the repression strength increases
793: two distinct peaks begin to form.
794: For intermediate values of $k$ these peaks are still connected,
795: by a corridor of non-vanishing probabilities
796: [Fig. \ref{fig4}(b)].
797: Monte Carlo simulations show that for intermediate values of $k$,
798: the system indeed exhibits two states,
799: one rich in $A$ and the other rich in $B$,
800: but rapid transitions occur between
801: them.
802:
803: For strong repression,
804: the distribution
805: $P(N_A,N_B)$
806: exhibits two peaks which are separated by
807: a region with vanishing probabilities
808: [Fig. \ref{fig4}(c)].
809: In one peak the $A$ population is suppressed, while in the
810: other peak the $B$ population is suppressed,
811: as expected for a bistable system.
812: The average population of the dominant protein specie in each peak is
813: $\langle N_{\rm X} \rangle \approx g/d$,
814: while the population of the suppressed specie is
815: $\langle N_{\rm X} \rangle \approx 0$.
816: Monte Carlo simulations show that in this case the average
817: time between spontaneous transitions is much longer.
818: The typical switching time for the case shown
819: in Fig. \ref{fig3}(b)
820: is around $10^{5}$ seconds.
821: It is much longer than the time-scales of the transcription,
822: translation and degradation processes.
823: It is also longer than the time between cell divisions
824: which is of the order of $10^3-10^4$ seconds.
825: The Monte Carlo results clearly
826: show a large number of failed attempts in which a protein of the minority
827: specie binds to the promoter and then unbinds again, without causing
828: the system to flip.
829:
830: \subsection{Analysis of Switching Times}
831:
832: To evaluate the switching times
833: we performed the following procedure.
834: We initialized the master equation in a state which
835: is completely dominated by A proteins,
836: namely,
837: $P(N_A=\lfloor g/d \rfloor,N_B=0,r_A=0,r_B=0)=1$
838: (where $\lfloor \ \rfloor$ represents the integer part),
839: and all other probabilities vanish.
840: The master equation was then integrated numerically
841: and $P(N_A,N_B)$ was calculated
842: as a function of time.
843: The function
844: $f(t)=P(N_A>N_B)-P(N_A<N_B)$
845: was found to decay exponentially
846: from its initial value,
847: $f(0)=1$, to zero,
848: according to
849: $f(t)=\exp(-t/\tau)$.
850: %[Fig.~\ref{fig7}],
851: The time constant
852: $\tau$ is defined as the switching time
853: \cite{TauMEMC}.
854: Its inverse, $\tau^{-1}$,
855: is referred to as the switching rate.
856:
857: Using this procedure, we examined the dependence of the
858: switching time, $\tau$ on the protein synthesis rate, $g$
859: [Fig. \ref{fig5}(a)],
860: the degradation rate, $d$
861: [Fig. \ref{fig5}(b)],
862: and the repression strength, $k$
863: [Fig. \ref{fig5}(c)].
864: In the parameter range in which bistability takes place,
865: we obtain that
866: (a) $\tau \sim g$,
867: (b) $\tau \sim 1/d^2$
868: and
869: (c) $\tau \sim k$.
870: Concerning
871: Fig. \ref{fig5}(c),
872: note that system exhibits bistability only in the regime in which $k$
873: is large
874: \cite{OnlyK2006}.
875: For $k<1$ , $\tau \sim 100-1000$ (s), which is the typical time-scale
876: of other processes in the cell.
877: Only for $k \gtrsim 10$,
878: $\tau$ becomes significantly larger than
879: the time scales of other processes, and
880: the system can function as a stable switch.
881: The scaling properties of the switching time can be summarized by
882:
883: \begin{equation}
884: \tau \sim {\alpha_0 \over \alpha_1} {g \over d^2}.
885: \label{eq:exclusive_scaling}
886: \end{equation}
887:
888: \noindent
889: This result can be reproduced by a simple argument.
890: Consider an initial state in which the system is dominated by
891: $A$ proteins, while the population of $B$ proteins is suppressed,
892: namely
893: $[A] \gg [B]$.
894: In this situation the promoter site is occupied by an $A$ protein
895: during most of the time.
896: In order that the switch will flip,
897: the bound A protein must
898: unbind (at rate $\alpha_1$).
899: Then, a $B$ protein (rather than an $A$ protein)
900: should bind to the promoter.
901: The probability for this to happen is
902: $\sim [B]/[A]$.
903: This $B$ protein
904: should remain bound long enough in order to build up a sufficiently
905: large population of $B$ proteins.
906: On average, the $B$ protein stays bound $1/\alpha_1$ (s),
907: during which $g/\alpha_1$ proteins of type $B$ are produced.
908: After the $B$ repressor will unbind, the probability that
909: the next protein that binds will be of type $B$ rather than $A$,
910: is thus
911: $\sim (g/\alpha_1)/[A]$
912: (neglecting the degradation of $A$ proteins,
913: because $\alpha_1 \gg d$).
914: Following this argument,
915: the switching rate is given by
916:
917: \begin{equation}
918: \tau^{-1} \sim
919: \alpha_1
920: \times {[B] \over [A]}
921: \times { {g} \over {\alpha_1 [A]} }
922: = g { [B] \over [A]^2 }.
923: \label{eq:exclusive_scaling2}
924: \end{equation}
925:
926: \noindent
927: From the Michaelis-Menten equations we obtain that
928:
929: \begin{equation}
930: \frac{[B]}{[A]} = \frac{1}{1 + k [A]} \approx \frac{1}{k[A]},
931: \end{equation}
932:
933: \noindent
934: since
935: for strong repression
936: $k[A] \gg 1$.
937: Inserting this result into Eq.
938: (\ref{eq:exclusive_scaling2})
939: and
940: using
941: and
942: $[A] \approx g/d$
943: we find that
944:
945: \begin{equation}
946: \tau = \frac{kg}{d^2}.
947: \end{equation}
948:
949: \noindent
950: This result can be considered as the leading term in the expansion
951: of $\tau$ in powers of $g$, $d$ and $k$.
952: This leading term turns out to provide a
953: very good approximation to simulation results.
954: For example
955: for $g=0.2$,
956: $d=0.005$,
957: $\alpha_0=0.2$,
958: and
959: $\alpha_1=0.01$
960: (s$^{-1}$)
961: we get
962: $\tau=1.6 \cdot 10^5$ (s),
963: which agrees perfectly with
964: the results of Monte Carlo simulations.
965:
966: From Eq.
967: (\ref{eq:exclusive_scaling2}),
968: and from the fact that
969: the average copy number of the
970: dominant specie is
971: $[A] \approx g/d$,
972: we find that
973: when the production rate, $g$, is varied while keeping
974: all other parameters fixed,
975: $\tau \sim [A]$.
976: Otherwise,
977: when the degradation rate, $d$, is varied while all other parameters
978: are fixed,
979: $\tau \sim [A]^2$.
980: In general,
981: the switching time is
982: $\tau = \tau(k,g,d)$,
983: while the population size, $[A]$,
984: of the dominant specie
985: depends on both $g$ and $d$.
986: Thus,
987: by a suitable variation of the rate constants,
988: any desired dependence of $\tau$ on
989: $[A]$
990: can be obtained.
991: In particular,
992: by increasing $k$,
993: $\tau$ can be increased with no effect on
994: $[A]$.
995: A similar result is obtained when $g$ and $d$ are decreased
996: by the same factor.
997: We thus conclude that the population size is only one
998: of several factors that affect the switching time.
999: A complete description of the switching time should
1000: include all the relevant rate constants.
1001:
1002: In Monte Carlo simulations of
1003: a switch system with cooperative
1004: binding, the switching time was found to
1005: depend exponentialy on the copy number
1006: \cite{Warren2004,Warren2005}.
1007: This is consistent with the discussion above, but requires
1008: a well defined protocol according to which
1009: the rate constants are varied.
1010:
1011: \section{The Switch with Bound Repressor Degradation}
1012: \label{sec:BRD}
1013:
1014: Consider a different variant of the general switch,
1015: in which not only free repressors,
1016: but also bound repressors
1017: are affected by degradation.
1018: The bound-repressor degradation (BRD)
1019: tends to prevent the dead-lock situation in which
1020: both $A$ and $B$ repressors are bound simultaneously.
1021: This is due to the fact that degradation removes the bound repressor
1022: from the system, unlike
1023: unbinding, where the resulting free repressor may quickly bind again.
1024: It turns out that degradation of bound repressors induces
1025: bistability not only at the level of the master
1026: equation but even at the level of rate equations.
1027:
1028: \subsection{Rate Equations}
1029:
1030: The rate equations that describe the BRD switch
1031: take the form
1032:
1033: \begin{eqnarray}
1034: \dot{[A]} &=& g (1-[r_B]) - d [A]-
1035: \alpha_0 [A] \left (1-[r_A] \right) + \alpha_1[r_A] \nonumber \\
1036: \dot{[B]} &=& g (1-[r_A])-d [B]-
1037: \alpha_0[B]\left(1-[r_B]\right)+\alpha_1[r_B] \nonumber \\
1038: \dot{[r_A]} &=& \alpha_0[A]\left(1-[r_A]\right)-\alpha_1[r_A]
1039: - d_r [r_A] \nonumber \\
1040: \dot{[r_B]} &=& \alpha_0[B]\left(1-[r_B]\right)-\alpha_1[r_B]
1041: - d_r [r_B],
1042: \label{eq:brd_switch_rate}
1043: \end{eqnarray}
1044:
1045: \noindent
1046: where $d_r$ is the degradation rate of the bound repressors.
1047: Assuming quasi-steady state for the binding-unbinding
1048: processes we obtain
1049: the Michaelis-Menten equations
1050:
1051: \begin{eqnarray}
1052: %\label{eq:Adeg}
1053: \dot{[A]}&=&{g \over {1+k[B]}}
1054: - \left(d + {{d_rk}\over{1+k[A]}} \right) [A] \nonumber \\
1055: %\label{eq:Bdeg}
1056: \dot{[B]}&=&{g \over {1+k[A]}}
1057: - \left( d + {{d_rk}\over{1+k[B]}} \right) [B],
1058: \label{eq:DBR_switch_michaelis_menten}
1059: \end{eqnarray}
1060:
1061: \noindent
1062: where now
1063: $k=\alpha_0/(\alpha_1+d_r)$.
1064: Note that the coefficients of $[A]$
1065: and $[B]$
1066: in the second terms in
1067: Eq.
1068: (\ref{eq:DBR_switch_michaelis_menten})
1069: can be considered as effective degradation rate
1070: constants.
1071:
1072: For steady state conditins,
1073: Eq.
1074: (\ref{eq:DBR_switch_michaelis_menten})
1075: exhibits the
1076: symmetric solution
1077:
1078: \begin{equation}
1079: [A] = [B] = \frac{[ (d+d_rk)^2 + 4dkg]^{1/2} - d - d_rk }{ 2dk}.
1080: \label{eq:symmBRD}
1081: \end{equation}
1082:
1083: \noindent
1084: This solution exists for any choice of the parameters.
1085: In addition, in some parameter range, two non-symmetric solutions
1086: exist. These solutions can be expressed as the solutions
1087: of the quadratic equation
1088:
1089: \begin{equation}
1090: dd_r k^2 [A]^2 + (gdk+dd_rk+d_r^2k^2-gd_rk^2)[A]+gd=0.
1091: \label{eq:Asymmetrics}
1092: \end{equation}
1093:
1094: \noindent
1095: The condition for the
1096: existence of two different solutions of this equation is
1097:
1098: \begin{equation}
1099: (g-d_r)[g(kd_r-d)^2-d_r(kd_r+d)^2]>0.
1100: \label{eq:Asymmetrics2}
1101: \end{equation}
1102:
1103: \noindent
1104: In order for them to be positive the
1105: condition
1106: $g>d_r$
1107: must be satisfied.
1108: Thus, the bifurcation takes place at
1109:
1110: \begin{equation}
1111: k_c = \frac{d(\sqrt{g}+\sqrt{d_r})}{d_r(\sqrt{g}-\sqrt{d_r})},
1112: \label{eq:Asymmetrics3}
1113: \end{equation}
1114:
1115: \noindent
1116: and the non-symmetric solutions exist for $k>k_c$.
1117: Linear stability analysis shows that whenever the non-symmetric
1118: solutions exist they are stable, while the symmetric solution
1119: is stable only for $k \le k_c$.
1120:
1121: The steady state populations of free $A$ and $B$ repressors
1122: vs. $k$, for the BRD switch, are shown in
1123: Fig. \ref{fig6}.
1124: The results of numerical integration of the rate equations
1125: ($\times$) are in perfect agreement with the analytical results
1126: derived above (solid line).
1127: We conclude that the degradation of bound repressors induces
1128: bistability, even at the level of rate equations.
1129: The emergence of bistability can be attributed to the
1130: fact that the effective degradation rate for the minority
1131: specie in
1132: Eq. (\ref{eq:DBR_switch_michaelis_menten})
1133: is larger than the effective degradation rate
1134: for the dominant specie.
1135: This tends to
1136: enhance the difference between the population sizes
1137: and to destabilize the symmetric solution
1138: for $k>k_c$.
1139:
1140: \subsection{Master Equation}
1141:
1142: The master equation for the BRD switch
1143: can be obtained from
1144: Eq. (\ref{eq:general_switch_master})
1145: by adding the term
1146:
1147: \begin{eqnarray}
1148: \label{eq:BRD_switch_master}
1149: && d_r [\delta_{r_A,0} P(N_A,N_B,r_A+1,r_B)
1150: - \delta_{r_A,1} P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)] + \nonumber\\
1151: && d_r [\delta_{r_B,0} P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B+1)
1152: - \delta_{r_B,1} P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)].
1153: \end{eqnarray}
1154:
1155: \noindent
1156: For steady state conditions we find that BRD tends to suppress
1157: the peak near the origin of $P(N_A,N_B)$.
1158: For a suitable range of parameters, two separate peaks
1159: appear, which qualitatively resemble those obtained for the
1160: exclusive switch.
1161: However, unlike the exclusive switch,
1162: there is a narrow corridor with small
1163: but non-vanishing probabilities
1164: that connects the two peaks via the origin.
1165: As a result, the switching time for the BRD
1166: switch tend to be somewhat shorter than for the
1167: exclusive switch with the same parameters.
1168: The switching times, $\tau$, vs. the
1169: repression strength, $k$,
1170: are shown in
1171: Fig. \ref{fig7}.
1172:
1173: We now examine in what range of parameters
1174: this circuit is indeed a switch
1175: according to the master equation.
1176: Unlike the rate equation where the condition
1177: for bistability is clear
1178: [Eq. (\ref{eq:Asymmetrics3})],
1179: in the case of the master equation the
1180: notion of bistability is more subtle.
1181: Thus,
1182: in the analysis below we use the following operational criterion.
1183: First we define the two states of the switch.
1184: The $A$-dominated state is defined
1185: as the set of all states in which
1186: $N_A>2$ and $N_B=0,1$.
1187: Similarly, the
1188: $B$-dominated state is defined by $N_B>2$ and $N_A=0,1$.
1189: The system is considered as a switch
1190: if, under steady state conditions, the total probability
1191: to be in either of these states is larger than $0.99$.
1192: This leaves a probability of only 0.01 for all
1193: the intermediate states,
1194: which the system must visit in order to switch between the
1195: $A$-dominated and the $B$-dominated states.
1196: As a result, the switching rate is low.
1197:
1198: We used this criterion in order to find the region in the $(k,d_r)$ plane
1199: of the parameter space in which the BRD circuit exhibits bistability.
1200: %The results are given in
1201: %Fig. \ref{fig}.
1202: It was found that the BRD switch exhibits bistability
1203: for large enough values of $k$,
1204: as long as the value of $d_r$ is not too different from $d$.
1205: If $d_r/d \ll 1$, the process of bound-repressor degradation is
1206: negligible and cannot eliminate the dead-lock situation.
1207: If $d_r/d \gg 1$, proteins bind and quickly degrade.
1208: As a result, the population of the dominant specie is reduced
1209: and bistability is suppressed.
1210:
1211: Within the parameter range in which the system exhibits bistability,
1212: we examined the dependence of the switching time
1213: $\tau$ of the BRD switch
1214: on the
1215: parameters
1216: $g$, $d$, $\alpha_0$ and $d_r$.
1217: %In
1218: %Fig. \ref{fig:BRD_switch_tau}
1219: %we show
1220: %the switching time
1221: %$\tau$ vs. $g$, $d$ and $k$.
1222: It was found that $\tau$ exhibits linear dependence on
1223: the production rate $g$ and on the repression strength $k$
1224: (here, $k$ was varied by changing $\alpha_0$, keeping $\alpha_1$
1225: and $d_r$ fixed).
1226: The dependence of $\tau$ on the degradation rate $d$ was found to be
1227: approximately $1/d^2$.
1228: Note that as
1229: $d$ was veried,
1230: we kept $d_r=d$ in order that the system remains bistable.
1231: Since $k$ depends on $d_r$,
1232: it slightly varied as well.
1233:
1234: Unlike the exclusive switch,
1235: where we managed to obtain the scaling properties of
1236: $\tau$ by a simple argument,
1237: the BRD switch turns out to be more complicated.
1238: This is due to the fact that
1239: there are several processes that may
1240: lead to the flipping of the switch,
1241: such as the unbinding or the degradation of the bound repressor.
1242: A further complication is that the
1243: two repressors can be bound simultaneously.
1244: As a result, we have not managed to obtain
1245: an expression for $\tau$ in the BRD switch.
1246:
1247: \section{The Switch with Protein-Protein Interaction}
1248: \label{sec:PPI}
1249:
1250: Consider a switch circuit which
1251: in addition to the mutual repression,
1252: exhibits
1253: protein-protein interactions (PPI), namely
1254: an A protein and a B protein may form a complex, AB.
1255: The AB complex is not active as a transcription factor.
1256:
1257: \subsection{Rate Equations}
1258:
1259: The PPI switch can be described by the following rate equations
1260:
1261: \begin{eqnarray}
1262: \dot{[A]} &=& g (1-[r_B]) - d [A]-
1263: \alpha_0 [A] \left (1-[r_A] \right) + \alpha_1[r_A] -\gamma AB \nonumber \\
1264: \dot{[B]} &=& g (1-[r_A])-d [B]-
1265: \alpha_0[B]\left(1-[r_B]\right)+\alpha_1[r_B] -\gamma AB \nonumber \\
1266: \dot{[r_A]} &=& \alpha_0[A]\left(1-[r_A]\right)-\alpha_1[r_A] \nonumber \\
1267: \dot{[r_B]} &=& \alpha_0[B]\left(1-[r_B]\right)-\alpha_1[r_B].
1268: \label{eq:PPI_switch_rate}
1269: \end{eqnarray}
1270:
1271: \noindent
1272: The parameter $\gamma$ is the rate constant for the binding of
1273: a pair of $A$ and $B$ proteins.
1274: The Michaelis-Menten equations take the form
1275:
1276: \begin{eqnarray}
1277: \dot{[A]} &=& \frac{g}{1+k[B]} - d [A] -\gamma [A][B]\nonumber \\
1278: \dot{[B]} &=& \frac{g}{1+k[A]} - d [B] -\gamma [A][B].
1279: \label{eq:PPI_switch_michaelis_menten}
1280: \end{eqnarray}
1281:
1282: \noindent
1283: For steady state conditions,
1284: these equations exhibit a symmetric solution, $[A]=[B]$,
1285: for any choice of the parameters.
1286: It is the solution of
1287:
1288: \begin{equation}
1289: \gamma k [A]^3 + (\gamma+dk)[A]^2 + d[A] - g = 0.
1290: \end{equation}
1291:
1292: \noindent
1293: Since all the coefficients of powers of [A] are positive,
1294: this equation has only one positive solution.
1295: Also, within some range of parameters
1296: there exist non-symmetric solutions, given by
1297: the solutions of
1298:
1299: \begin{equation}
1300: d\gamma k[A]^2 + (d\gamma +d^2 k - g\gamma k)[A]+d^2 = 0.
1301: \label{eq:PPnonsym}
1302: \end{equation}
1303:
1304: \noindent
1305: The non-symmetric solutions exist only for the range of parameters
1306: in which
1307: Eq. (\ref{eq:PPnonsym})
1308: has two positive solutions.
1309: The condition for this can be easily expressed in terms of the coefficients
1310: in
1311: Eq. (\ref{eq:PPnonsym}).
1312:
1313: As in the case of the BRD switch,
1314: bistability is observed even
1315: at the level of rate equations.
1316: Again, the emergence of bistability can be attributed to the
1317: fact that the effective degradation rate constant for the minority
1318: specie is larger than for the dominant specie, thus
1319: enhancing the difference between the population sizes
1320: [note that the effective degradation rate constant for
1321: $A$ is $(d+\gamma [B])$,
1322: while for $B$ it is $(d+\gamma [A])$].
1323:
1324: \subsection{Master Equation}
1325:
1326: The master equation for the PPI switch
1327: can be obtained from
1328: Eq. (\ref{eq:general_switch_master})
1329: by adding the term
1330:
1331: \begin{equation}
1332: \gamma [(N_A+1)(N_B+1) P(N_A+1,N_B+1,r_A,r_B)
1333: - N_A N_B P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)].
1334: \label{eq:PPI_switch_master}
1335: \end{equation}
1336:
1337: \noindent
1338: For a suitable range of parameters
1339: the steady state solution of the master
1340: equation exhibits two separate peaks.
1341: To draw the range of parameters in
1342: which bistability takes place we apply the
1343: operational criterion used above for the BRD switch.
1344: We fix
1345: $g$,
1346: $d$
1347: and
1348: $\alpha_1$
1349: and examined the system in the
1350: $(k,\gamma)$ plane.
1351: The results are plotted in
1352: Fig. \ref{fig8} (solid line).
1353:
1354: For small values of $\gamma$
1355: (weak PP interaction),
1356: the circuit
1357: does not exhibit bistability.
1358: As the interaction strength increases
1359: the circuit behaves as a switch for a certain range of repression
1360: strength $k$.
1361: This range broadens as $\gamma$ is increased.
1362: Unlike the switch systems discussed above,
1363: in which the bistability gets stronger as $k$ is increased,
1364: the PPI switch is bistable
1365: for intermediate values of $k$.
1366: This can be understood as follows.
1367: Recall that the key to the formation of a switch is the
1368: elimination of the dead-lock situation.
1369: The exclusive and the
1370: BRD switches deal with this situation directly at the bound
1371: repressor level.
1372: However the PP interaction does not directly
1373: affect the bound repressor.
1374: To prevent the possibility of two proteins bound
1375: simultaneously, one of them should unbind
1376: and form a complex with a protein of the other specie.
1377: In order for this to happen, the repressors must not
1378: be bound too strongly.
1379: Therefore, the PPI switch works
1380: at intermediate repression strength.
1381: As the PPI becomes more effective
1382: (larger $\gamma$) this mechanism applies
1383: at larger values of $k$.
1384:
1385: Enhanced switching properties can be obtained by considering
1386: a hybrid system that combines
1387: PPI and exclusive binding.
1388: The resulting switch exhibits bistability
1389: in a broader
1390: range of parameters than the exclusive or PPI switches alone.
1391: The
1392: master equation for the
1393: exclusive-PPI switch is
1394: obtained from
1395: Eq. (\ref{eq:exclusive_switch_master})
1396: by adding the term
1397:
1398: \begin{equation}
1399: \gamma [(N_A+1)(N_B+1) P(N_A+1,N_B+1,r_A,r_B)
1400: - N_A N_B P(N_A,N_B,r_A,r_B)],
1401: \end{equation}
1402:
1403: \noindent
1404: which accounts for the PP interaction.
1405: Numerical results, shown in
1406: Fig.~\ref{fig8},
1407: indicate that indeed as expected the exclusive-PPI switch is a
1408: better switch than either the PPI or the
1409: exclusive switch.
1410: The parameter range in which it
1411: exhibits bistability is broader.
1412: Thus, it is more
1413: robust to variations in the parameters
1414: than the exclusive or PPI switches.
1415:
1416: \section{Cooperative Binding}
1417: \label{sec:cooperative}
1418:
1419: Cooperative binding is found in genetic switch
1420: systems such as the phage $\lambda$ switch
1421: \cite{Ptashne1992}.
1422: In this case, transcription regulation is obtained
1423: only when several copies of the repressor are bound
1424: simultaneously.
1425: This situation can be achieved in two ways.
1426: One possibility is that repressors bind to each other and
1427: form a complex, which then binds to the promoter.
1428: The other possibility is that the repressors bind separately,
1429: but those already bound assist the other ones to bind more
1430: effectively.
1431: In the case of cooperative binding, bistability turns out
1432: to appear even at the level of rate equations
1433: \cite{Cherry2000}.
1434:
1435: \subsection{Rate Equations}
1436:
1437: Switch systems with cooperative binding are commonly
1438: described by
1439:
1440: \begin{eqnarray}
1441: \dot{[A]} &=& \frac{g}{1+k[B]^n} - d [A] \nonumber \\
1442: \dot{[B]} &=& \frac{g}{1+k[A]^n} - d [B],
1443: \label{eq:general_switch_hilln}
1444: \end{eqnarray}
1445:
1446: \noindent
1447: where $n$ is the Hill coefficient.
1448: It corresponds to the number of copies of the transcription
1449: factor which are required in order to perform the repression
1450: process. Here we focus on the case $n=2$,
1451: and show that these equations exhibit two stable steady state
1452: solutions
1453: for some range of parameters.
1454: Imposing
1455: $\dot{[A]}=\dot{[B]}=0$
1456: in Eq. (\ref{eq:general_switch_hilln}),
1457: we obtain
1458:
1459: \begin{eqnarray}
1460: g - d[A] - kd[A][B]^2 &=& 0 \nonumber \\
1461: g - d[B] - kd[B][A]^2 &=& 0.
1462: \label{eq:general_switch_hilln1}
1463: \end{eqnarray}
1464:
1465: \noindent
1466: Subtracting one of these equations from the other we
1467: find that
1468:
1469: \begin{equation}
1470: -d([A]-[B])-kd[A][B]([B]-[A])=0.
1471: \label{eq:AmB}
1472: \end{equation}
1473:
1474: \noindent
1475: Looking for a non-symmetric solution for
1476: which $[A] \neq [B]$,
1477: we divide
1478: Eq.
1479: (\ref{eq:AmB})
1480: by
1481: $[A]-[B]$.
1482: We
1483: find that
1484: $k[A][B]=1$,
1485: or $[B]=1/k[A]$.
1486: Inserting this into
1487: Eq. (\ref{eq:general_switch_hilln1})
1488: we get an equation for $[A]$:
1489:
1490: \begin{equation}
1491: dk[A]^2-gk[A]+d=0.
1492: \end{equation}
1493:
1494: \noindent
1495: This equation exhibits two distinct stable solutions
1496:
1497: \begin{equation}
1498: [A]=\frac{gk \pm \sqrt{g^2 k^2-4 d^2 k}}{2dk},
1499: \end{equation}
1500:
1501: \noindent
1502: for
1503: $k>4d^2/g^2$.
1504: This means that the system becomes bistable
1505: at the bifurcation point, $k=4d^2/g^2$.
1506: In addition to these solutions,
1507: the symmetric solution
1508: $[A]=[B]$
1509: exists for any choice of the parameters.
1510: This
1511: symmetric solution is stable for
1512: $k<4d^2/g^2$ and becomes unstable at the bifurcation point.
1513:
1514: \subsection{Monte Carlo Simulations}
1515:
1516: Consider a switch system with cooperative binding with
1517: $n=2$,
1518: in which two proteins of the
1519: same specie bind together to form a complex or dimer.
1520: The repression of $A$ synthesis is done by dimers composed
1521: of two $B$ proteins and vice versa.
1522: For example, consider an exclusive switch, in which
1523: the dimers of $A$ and $B$ cannot be bound simultaneously.
1524: To account for stochastic effects, we have studied this
1525: system using Monte Carlo simulations.
1526:
1527: The rate constant for the formation of dimers is
1528: denoted by $\gamma_D$.
1529: It is assumed that dimers cannot dissociate
1530: into single proteins, but they can degrade.
1531: The degradation rate of
1532: dimers is denoted by $d_D$.
1533: We examined the dependence of the
1534: switching time $\tau$ on all the parameters.
1535: We found the following properties.
1536: The dependence of $\tau$ on $g$ was found to be
1537: linear as for the exclusive and BRD switch.
1538: The dependence on $d$ is very weak,
1539: except for the limit in which $d$ is very large.
1540: This is because the proteins
1541: tend to form dimers before they have a chance to degrade.
1542: The dependence of $\tau$ on
1543: $k=\alpha_0/\alpha_1$
1544: is found to be well fitted by a quadratic polynomial.
1545: This means that for sufficiently strong repression,
1546: $\tau \sim k^2$.
1547:
1548: The dependence of $\tau$ on the dimerization rate
1549: $\gamma_D$
1550: [Fig. \ref{fig9}(a)]
1551: exhibits interesting behavior.
1552: For small values of $\gamma_D$ the system
1553: is not really a switch, because
1554: almost no dimers are formed.
1555: Therefore the switching time is short.
1556: For larger values of $\gamma_D$
1557: the dimer population increases and
1558: the system starts to function as a
1559: switch.
1560: The switching time
1561: $\tau$ increases as the switch
1562: becomes more stable.
1563: But from some point,
1564: increasing $\gamma_D$ causes $\tau$ to
1565: decrease.
1566: This is because, very fast dimerization
1567: helps the minority
1568: specie to form dimers,
1569: making it more likely to flip the switch.
1570:
1571: The dependence of $\tau$ on
1572: $d_D$
1573: [Fig. \ref{fig9}(b)]
1574: was found to be well fitted by a
1575: cubic polynomial in $1/d_D$.
1576: This means that in the limit of slowly degrading dimers,
1577: $\tau \sim 1/d_D^3$.
1578: In the limit of fast dimer-degradation
1579: the system is not bistable,
1580: because the population of dimers is too small
1581: to make the repression effective.
1582:
1583: The switching time for this system was also
1584: studied in Ref.
1585: \cite{Warren2004},
1586: where
1587: $\tau$ was presented as a function of
1588: the average copy number of the dominant specie.
1589: However, the copy number depends
1590: in a non-trivial way on the parameters
1591: and cannot be directly controlled.
1592: Therefore, we believe that
1593: in a systematic study of the switching times,
1594: it is more practical to examine
1595: the dependence of $\tau$ on the parameters themselves.
1596:
1597: Note that there is another important realization of cooperative
1598: binding in which the promoter consists of two binding sites.
1599: When a protein binds to one of them it facilitates the binding
1600: of another protein to the second site.
1601: The effect of this mechanism is qualitatively similar to the
1602: one shown above for dimers.
1603: In general cooperative binding induces bistability becuase it
1604: forces the minority specie to recruit at least two proteins
1605: in order to flip the switch.
1606: As a result, cooperative binding helps to remove the dead-lock situation
1607: in which both species are suppressed simultaneously.
1608:
1609: \section{Response to External Signals}
1610: \label{sec:response}
1611:
1612: Until now our discussion considered only
1613: spontaneous transitions between
1614: the two states of the switch.
1615: Here we demonstrate how an
1616: external signal may lead to the flipping of the switch.
1617: In case of the $\lambda$ switch,
1618: such an external signal may be, for example, the
1619: exposure of {\it E. coli}
1620: infected by phage $\lambda$ to UV light.
1621: In the {\it lac} circuit, the external signal indicates
1622: the presence of lactose.
1623: We assume that the effect of the external
1624: signal is that one of the proteins
1625: undergoes a conformal change
1626: that prevents its binding
1627: to the promoter.
1628: When the signal affects the dominant specie,
1629: this may lead to the
1630: flipping of the switch.
1631: We assume that the conformal change is
1632: fast and that it lasts for a period
1633: of time determined by the duration of the
1634: external signal.
1635:
1636: We have performed Monte Carlo simulations,
1637: where the binding rate $\alpha_0$ of the
1638: dominant specie was set to zero for
1639: some period of time (the length of external signal).
1640: We calculated the probability for a
1641: flipping of the switch during $1800$ (s), which is roughly the
1642: time between divisions of {\it E. coli},
1643: as a function of the signal length.
1644: The results are
1645: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig10}.
1646:
1647: For short duration of the signal, the switch
1648: has a small chance to flip. As
1649: the duration increases the probability to flip
1650: increases too, and so for a long
1651: enough signal, the switch will eventually flip as expected
1652: (the actual switching time depends on
1653: the parameters of the switch, like
1654: the production rate $g$ or the unbinding rate $\alpha_1$.
1655: Here we just demonstrated
1656: that in principle the switch will flip states
1657: in response to an external signal).
1658:
1659: \section{Discussion}
1660: \label{sec:discussion}
1661:
1662: In the rate equations, the meaning of bistability is clear.
1663: It typically appears as a result of a bifurcation.
1664: Below the bifurcation there is a single, stable solution,
1665: which becomes unstable at the bifurcation point, where two
1666: stable solutions emerge.
1667: In case of the toggle switch, one of these solutions is
1668: dominated by $A$ proteins and the other is dominated by $B$ proteins.
1669: Since both solutions are stable, the possibility of spontaneous
1670: transitions between them due to stochastic fluctuations is not
1671: included in the rate equation model.
1672:
1673: The objects that participate in regulatory processes in cells,
1674: namely genes, mRNAs, proteins and promoter sites are discrete
1675: objects, and some of them often appear in low copy numbers.
1676: This, together with the fact that many of the relevant processes
1677: such as diffusion, degradation as well as binding and unbinding
1678: of transcription factors are of stochastic nature, requires to
1679: consider the role of stochastic fluctuations in these regulatory
1680: processes. This can be done by using the master equation or Monte
1681: Carlo simulations.
1682:
1683: In the master equation, bistability is characterized by two
1684: separate peaks in the probability distribution. These peaks
1685: should be sufficiently far from each other, with low probabilities
1686: in the domain between them. As a result, the flow of probability
1687: between the two peaks is low and the time between spontaneous
1688: switching events is long. In order to qualify as a switch,
1689: the average time between spontaneous switching events must
1690: be much longer than the time constants of the transcription,
1691: translation and degradation processes in the cell.
1692:
1693: For the systems studied here it was found that the general
1694: switch without cooperative binding does not exhibit bistability
1695: bistability either with the rate equations or with the master
1696: equation.
1697: Two other variants, the BRD and the PPI switch systems,
1698: were found to exhibit bistability both with the rate
1699: equations and with the master equation.
1700: However, the exclusive switch,
1701: which is not bistable at the rate equation level,
1702: was found to exhibit bistability with the master equation.
1703: Thus, in case of the exclusive switch it is clear that
1704: stochastic fluctuations play a crucial role in making
1705: the system bistable. For this system we also found an exact
1706: phenomenological expression for the switching time in terms
1707: of the rate constants of the relevant processes.
1708:
1709: Stochastic analysis of genetic networks can be done
1710: either by direct integration of the master equation
1711: or by Monte Carlo simulations.
1712: The master equation provides the probability distribution
1713: of the population sizes of all the mRNA's and proteins
1714: in the simulated circuit.
1715: It can be considered as a distribution over a large
1716: number of genetically identical cells.
1717: The average population sizes and the rates of
1718: processes are expressed in terms of moments of this
1719: distribution.
1720: To obtain such distributions from Monte Carlo simulations,
1721: one needs to repeat the simulations a large number of times
1722: and average over them.
1723: This may be inefficient in terms of computer time, and the
1724: statistical errors may be significant.
1725: On the other hand, unlike the master equation,
1726: Monte Carlo simulations enable to follow
1727: the time evolution of a single cell and directly evaluate
1728: quantities such as switching times and oscillation periods.
1729:
1730: The number of equations in the master equation set increases
1731: exponentially with the number of proteins and mRNAs
1732: included in the simulated circuit.
1733: As a result, the master equation becomes infeasible for
1734: complex networks.
1735: Recently, we have shown that for reaction networks described
1736: by sparse graphs, one can use suitable approximations and
1737: dramatically reduce the number of equations
1738: \cite{Lipshtat2004}.
1739:
1740: A related circuit,
1741: the mixed feedback loop,
1742: in which $A$ is a repressor to $B$
1743: and the $A$ and $B$ proteins bind to form a complex
1744: was recently studied using rate equations
1745: \cite{Francois2004,Francois2005}.
1746: It was found to exhibit bistability
1747: within a range of parameters.
1748:
1749: \section{Summary}
1750: \label{sec:summary}
1751:
1752: Genetic switch systems with mutual repression of two
1753: transcription factors,
1754: have been studied using a combination of
1755: deterministic and stochastic methods.
1756: These system exhibit bistability, namely
1757: two stable states such that
1758: spontaneous transitions between them are rare.
1759: Induced transitions take place as a
1760: result of an external stimulus.
1761: We have studied several variants of the genetic
1762: switch, which exhibit
1763: cooperative binding,
1764: exclusive binding,
1765: protein-protein interactions
1766: and degradation of bound repressors.
1767: For each variant we examined the range of parameters
1768: in which bistability takes place.
1769: Numerous studies have concluded
1770: that cooperative binding is
1771: a necessary condition for the emergence of bistability
1772: in these systems.
1773: We have shown that a suitable combination of network structure and
1774: stochastic effects gives rise to bistability even
1775: without cooperative binding.
1776: The average time $\tau$ between spontaneous transitions was evaluated
1777: as a function of the biological parameters.
1778:
1779: \newpage
1780: \clearpage
1781:
1782: %\bibliographystyle{prsty}
1783: %\bibliography{genetics}
1784:
1785: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1786:
1787: \bibitem{Elowitz2002}
1788: {M.B. Elowitz, A.J. Levine, E.D. Siggia and P.S. Swain}, Science {\bf 297},
1789: 1183 (2002).
1790:
1791: \bibitem{Ozbudak2002}
1792: {E.M. Ozbudak, M. Thattai, I. Kurtser, A.D. Grossman and A. van Oudenaarden},
1793: Nature Genetics {\bf 31}, 69 (2002).
1794:
1795: \bibitem{Mcadams1997}
1796: {H.H. McAdams and A. Arkin}, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US {\bf 94}, 814 (1997).
1797:
1798: \bibitem{Becskei2000}
1799: {A. Becskei and L. Serrano}, Nature {\bf 405}, 590 (2000).
1800:
1801: \bibitem{Kaern2005}
1802: {M. Kaern, T.C. Elston, W.J. Blake and J.J. Collins}, Nature Reviews Genetics
1803: {\bf 6}, 451 (2005).
1804:
1805: \bibitem{Vilar2002}
1806: {J.M. Vilar, H.Y. Kueh, N. Barkai and S. Leibler}, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US
1807: {\bf 99}, 5988 (2002).
1808:
1809: \bibitem{Shnerb2000}
1810: {N.M. Shnerb, Y. Louzoun, E. Bettelheim and S. Solomon}, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
1811: US {\bf 97}, 10322 (2000).
1812:
1813: \bibitem{Atkinson2003}
1814: {M.R. Atkinson, M.A. Savageau, J.T. Myers and A.J. Ninfa}, {Cell} {\bf 113},
1815: 597 (2003).
1816:
1817: \bibitem{Ptashne1992}
1818: {M. Ptashne}, {\em {A Genetic Switch: Phage $\lambda$ and Higher Organisms, 2nd
1819: edition.}} ({Cell Press and Blackwell Scientific Publications}, {Cambridge,
1820: MA}, 1992).
1821:
1822: \bibitem{Lewis2005}
1823: {M. Lewis}, {Comptes Rendus Biologies} {\bf 328}, 521 (2005).
1824:
1825: \bibitem{Gardner2000}
1826: {T.S. Gardner, C.R. Cantor and J.J. Collins}, Nature {\bf 403}, 339 (2000).
1827:
1828: \bibitem{Laslo2006}
1829: {P. Laslo et al.}, Cell {\bf 126}, 755 (2006).
1830:
1831: \bibitem{Hill}
1832: Hill-function models are simplifications of rate-law equations.
1833: When derived directly from rate laws,
1834: $n$ is expected to take only
1835: integer values,
1836: which represents the number of transcription
1837: factors required to perform the regulation.
1838: However, when these models are used for fitting
1839: empirical data, $n$ is a fitting parameter which may take
1840: non-integer values.
1841:
1842: \bibitem{Warren2004}
1843: {P.B. Warren and P.R. ten Wolde}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 128101 (2004).
1844:
1845: \bibitem{Warren2005}
1846: {P.B. Warren and P.R. ten Wolde}, J. Phys. Chem. B {\bf 109}, 6812 (2005).
1847:
1848: \bibitem{Walczak2005}
1849: {A. M. Walczak, M. Sasai, and P. Wolynes}, Biophysical Journal {\bf 88}, 828
1850: (2005).
1851:
1852: \bibitem{Cherry2000}
1853: {J.L. Cherry and F.R. Adler}, J. Theor. Biol. {\bf 203}, 117 (2000).
1854:
1855: \bibitem{mRNA}
1856: Extended circuits that include the mRNA level have also been
1857: studied. It was found that
1858: there is
1859: a perfect agreement between the
1860: results of the REs for the simplified and
1861: the extended circuits,
1862: and excellent agreement with only a slight difference in peak
1863: shapes in the ME.
1864:
1865: \bibitem{Lipshtat2005}
1866: {A. Lipshtat, H.B. Perets, N.Q. Balaban and O. Biham}, Gene {\bf 347}, 265
1867: (2005).
1868:
1869: \bibitem{Lipshtat2006}
1870: {A. Lipshtat, A. Loinger, N.Q. Balaban and O. Biham}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
1871: 96}, 188101 (2006).
1872:
1873: \bibitem{Kepler2001}
1874: {T.B. Kepler and T.C. Elston}, Biophysical Journal {\bf 81}, 3116 (2001).
1875:
1876: \bibitem{Paulsson2000}
1877: {J. Paulsson and M. Ehrenberg}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 5447 (2000).
1878:
1879: \bibitem{Paulsson2004}
1880: {J. Paulsson}, Nature {\bf 427}, 415 (2004).
1881:
1882: \bibitem{Arkin1998}
1883: {A. Arkin et al.}, Genetics {\bf 149}, 1633 (1998).
1884:
1885: \bibitem{VanKampen1992}
1886: {N.G. Van Kampen}, {\em {Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry}}
1887: ({North-Holland}, {}, 1992).
1888:
1889:
1890: \bibitem{TauMEMC}
1891: Results of $\tau$ calculated in this procedure,
1892: agree with results
1893: obtained from averaging a large number of Monte Carlo simulations,
1894: up to a numerical factor of 2. This factor rises from the fact the in
1895: the procedure we described the system can also return from the $B$ dominated
1896: peak to the $A$ dominated peak.
1897:
1898: \bibitem{OnlyK2006}
1899: {We assume that the switching time is a function only of $k$, the ratio
1900: between $\alpha_0$ and $\alpha_1$, and not of $\alpha_0$ and $\alpha_1$
1901: separately. This is indeed correct in the case of the exclusive switch,
1902: because we can always choose the time unit as desired and in such a way
1903: eliminate one of the variables. This assumption may fail in other cases,
1904: where $k$ is not simply $\alpha_0 / \alpha_1$. For convenience, in this work,
1905: most of the time $\alpha_1$ was held fixed at a value of $0.01$, $\alpha_0$
1906: varied, and the results were plotted as a function of $k$.}
1907:
1908: \bibitem{Lipshtat2004}
1909: A. Lipshtat and O. Biham,
1910: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 170601 (2004).
1911:
1912: \bibitem{Francois2004}
1913: P. Francois and V. Hakim,
1914: Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. {\bf 101}, 580 (2004)
1915:
1916: \bibitem{Francois2005}
1917: P. Francois and V. Hakim,
1918: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 72}, 031908 (2005)
1919:
1920: \end{thebibliography}
1921:
1922: \newpage
1923: \clearpage
1924:
1925: \begin{figure}
1926: \caption{Schematic illustrations of (a) the general switch circuit,
1927: that includes two transcription factors, $A$ and $B$,
1928: which negatively regulate each other's synthesis;
1929: (b) the exclusive switch,
1930: in which there is an overlap between the
1931: promoter sites of $A$ and $B$ proteins,
1932: so they cannot be bound simultaneously.
1933: }
1934: \label{fig1}
1935: \end{figure}
1936:
1937: \begin{figure}
1938: \caption{
1939: (Color online)
1940: The probability distribution
1941: $P(N_A,N_B)$
1942: for the general switch,
1943: under conditions of
1944: (a) weak repression ($k=0.005$)
1945: where there is one symmetric peak;
1946: and
1947: (b) strong repression ($k=50$)
1948: where three peaks appear, one dominated by $A$, the
1949: second dominated by $B$ and the third in which
1950: both species are mutually suppressed.
1951: The weights of the three peaks are about the same.
1952: }
1953: \label{fig2}
1954: \end{figure}
1955:
1956: \begin{figure}
1957: \caption{
1958: (Color online)
1959: The population sizes of free $A$ and $B$
1960: proteins vs. time
1961: obtained from a Monte Carlo simulation
1962: (a) for the general switch, where
1963: the system exhibits fast transitions between
1964: its three states;
1965: (b) for the exclusive switch
1966: The bistable behavior is clearly observed, where the population size
1967: of the dominant specie is between $20-60$ and the other specie is nearly
1968: diminished. Failed switching attempts are clearly seen.
1969: The typical switching time is in the order of $10^5$ (s) or roughly 1 day.
1970: Bound proteins are also shown. Their fast binding and unbinding events
1971: cannot be resolved on the time scale that is presented.
1972: In both cases,
1973: $g=0.2$,
1974: $d=0.005$,
1975: $\alpha_0=0.2$
1976: and
1977: $\alpha_1 = 0.01$ (s$^{-1}$).
1978: }
1979: \label{fig3}
1980: \end{figure}
1981:
1982: \begin{figure}
1983: \caption{
1984: (Color online)
1985: The probability distribution $P(N_A,N_B)$
1986: for the exclusive switch,
1987: under conditions of
1988: (a) weak repression ($k=0.005$) where there is one symmetric peak
1989: (b) intermediate repression ($k=1$) where two distinct peaks begin to emerge
1990: but are still connected, and
1991: (c) strong repression ($k=50$), where bistability is observed.
1992: }
1993: \label{fig4}
1994: \end{figure}
1995:
1996: \begin{figure}
1997: \caption{
1998: (Color online)
1999: Scaling properties of the switching time $\tau$
2000: for the exclusive switch
2001: vs.
2002: the protein synthesis rate $g$,
2003: the degradation rate $d$
2004: and the repression strength $k$.
2005: }
2006: \label{fig5}
2007: \end{figure}
2008:
2009: \begin{figure}
2010: \caption{
2011: Population sizes of the free $A$ and $B$ proteins vs. $k$
2012: for the BRD switch obtained from the rate equations.
2013: The parameters are
2014: $g=0.05$,
2015: $d=d_r=0.005$,
2016: $\alpha_1=0.01$
2017: and
2018: $\alpha_0$
2019: is varied.
2020: Here $k_c \approx 1.92$.
2021: Stable solutions are shown by solid lines and unstable solutions
2022: by dashed lines.
2023: }
2024: \label{fig6}
2025: \end{figure}
2026:
2027:
2028: \begin{figure}
2029: \caption{
2030: (Color online)
2031: The switching time $\tau$ vs. $k$ for the
2032: exclusive ($\times$),
2033: BRD ($\circ$)
2034: and PPI ($\triangle$)
2035: switch systems.
2036: The parameters used are
2037: $g=0.05$, $d=d_r=0.005$ and $\gamma=0.1$ (s$^{-1}$).
2038: }
2039: \label{fig7}
2040: \end{figure}
2041:
2042:
2043: \begin{figure}
2044: \caption{
2045: The range of parameters in the ($\gamma,k$) plane in which bistability
2046: takes place in the PPI switch (solid line) and in the
2047: exclusive-PPI switch (dashed line), using rate equations
2048: (a) and using the master equation (b).
2049: The other parameters are
2050: $g=0.05$ and $d=0.005$ (s$^{-1}$).
2051: }
2052: \label{fig8}
2053: \end{figure}
2054:
2055: \begin{figure}
2056: \caption{
2057: (Color online)
2058: The dependence of the switching time
2059: $\tau$ for the dimers exclusive switch
2060: on the
2061: dimers degradation rate $d_D$ (a)
2062: and the dimerization rate $\gamma_D$
2063: (b).
2064: }
2065: \label{fig9}
2066: \end{figure}
2067:
2068: \begin{figure}
2069: \caption{
2070: Probability for the exclusive switch to flip during 1800 (s)
2071: after the initiation of the signal,
2072: as a function of the external signal duration. The parameters used were
2073: $g=0.2$,
2074: $d=0.005$,
2075: $\alpha_1=0.01$
2076: and
2077: $\alpha_0=0.2$
2078: or zero during the signal.
2079: }
2080: \label{fig10}
2081: \end{figure}
2082:
2083: \end{document}
2084:
2085: