| Literature DB >> 21791088 |
Michail Stamatakis1, Kyriacos Zygourakis.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lac operon genetic switch is considered as a paradigm of genetic regulation. This system has a positive feedback loop due to the LacY permease boosting its own production by the facilitated transport of inducer into the cell and the subsequent de-repression of the lac operon genes. Previously, we have investigated the effect of stochasticity in an artificial lac operon network at the single cell level by comparing corresponding deterministic and stochastic kinetic models.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21791088 PMCID: PMC3181209 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-301
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Definition of cell chain and cell population. A cell chain essentially stores information about the history of a single cell in time. On the other hand, a cell population consists of all the viable offspring observed at time t.
Reactions and Propensity Functions for the Stochastic lac Operon Model
| Reaction | ||
|---|---|---|
| (1-1) | ||
| (1-2) | ||
| (1-3) | ||
| (1-4) | ||
| (1-5) | ||
| (1-6) | ||
| (1-7) | ||
| (1-8) | ||
| (1-9) | ||
| (1-10) | ||
| (1-11) | ||
| (1-12) | ||
| (1-13) | ||
| (1-14) | ||
| (1-15) | ||
| (1-16) | ||
| (1-17) | ||
| (1-18) | ||
| (1-19) | ||
| (1-20) | ||
| (1-21) | ||
| (1-22) | ||
| (1-23) | ||
| (1-24) | ||
| (1-25) | ||
1 Variables without brackets denote number of molecules of the corresponding species.
2 All propensity functions have units of min-1.
3 Avogadro's number: N= 6.0221367·1014 nmol-1.
Rate Equations for the Deterministic lac Operon Model
| (2-1) | ||||||
| (2-2) | ||||||
| (2-3) | ||||||
| (2-4) | ||||||
| (2-5) | ||||||
| (2-6) | ||||||
| (2-7) | ||||||
| (2-8) | ||||||
| (2-9) | ||||||
| (2-10) | ||||||
Parameters of the lac operon models
| Symbol | Value | Units | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4 | μm | ||
| 2.3 | μm | Representative | |
| 5.8 | μm2 | ||
| 1.0 | fL | ||
| 1 | (copy number) | operator molecular content | |
| 0.23 | nM·min-1 | ||
| 15 | min-1 | LacI monomer translation rate constant | |
| 50 | nM-1·min-1 | LacI dimerization rate constant | |
| 10-3 | min-1 | LacI dimer dissociation rate constant | |
| 960 | nM-1·min-1 | association rate constant for repression | |
| 2.4 | min-1 | dissociation rate constant for repression | |
| 3·10-7 | nM-2·min-1 | association rate constant for 1st derepression mechanism | |
| 12 | min-1 | dissociation rate constant for 1st derepression mechanism | |
| 3·10-7 | nM-2·min-1 | association rate constant for 2nd derepression mechanism | |
| 4.8·103 | nM-1·min-1 | dissociation rate constant for 2nd derepression mechanism | |
| 0.5 | min-1 | ||
| 0.01 | min-1 | leak | |
| 30 | min-1 | ||
| 0.12 | nM-1·min-1 | LacY-inducer association rate constant | |
| 0.1 | min-1 | LacY-inducer dissociation rate constant | |
| 6·104 | min-1 | TMG facilitated transport constant | |
| 1.55·10-6 | dm·min-1 | TMG passive diffusion permeability constant | |
| λ | 0.462 | min-1 | |
| λ | 0.462 | min-1 | |
| λ | 0.2 | min-1 | LacI monomer degradation constant |
| λ | 0.2 | min-1 | LacI dimer degradation constant |
| λ | 0.2 | min-1 | LacY degradation constant |
| λ | 0.2 | min-1 | LacY-inducer degradation constant |
| λ | 0.2 | min-1 | repressor-inducer degradation constant |
| 0.0231 | (min-1) | cell growth rate parameter | |
| 25 | (dim/less) | division propensity sharpness exponent | |
| 15 | (fL) | critical volume for division | |
| 80 | (dim/less) | beta distribution sharpness exponent | |
| 25 | (dim/less) | DNA duplication propensity sharpness exponent | |
| 10 | (fL) | critical volume for DNA duplication |
Figure 2Simulation results from the CPME model with deterministic reaction dynamics. The simulations for panels (a) and (b) start with a single cell close to the off-state, while the simulations for panels (c) and (d) start with a single cell close to the on-state. [I] = 24 μM for all simulations and all other parameters as in Table 3. Panels (a) and (c): Transients for all the cells in the corresponding populations. Panels (b) and (d): The solid lines show the dynamics of the population mean for the total LacY concentration for the simulations of panel (a) and (c) respectively. The dashed lines indicate the total number of cells for the corresponding simulations. The constant number technique is used for times greater than 415 min (when N= 104).
Figure 3Attracting states and transitions in the CPME model with deterministic reaction dynamics. [I] = 24 μM for all simulations and all other parameters as in Table 3. Panels (a) and (b): Dynamics for two cell chains that start with a cell initialized close to (a) the off-state and (b) the on-state. Panel (c): Transition from the off- to the on-state. Cell was initialized close to the off-state. A division occurs at t = 127 min. We impose V/V= 0.15 for this division and follow the smaller daughter cell. This is the only intervention throughout the simulation. The cell reaches the on-state and remains there. Panel (d): Transition from the on- to the off-state. For this simulation and just after a DNA duplication occurring at t = 113 min, the division time is set to 50 min. An arbitrary daughter is followed, which eventually reaches the off-state.
Figure 4Simulation results from the CPME model with stochastic reaction dynamics. [I] = 24 μM for all simulations and all other parameters as in Table 3. Panel (a): Timecourses of all cells in the population. Panel (b): The population average from a batch of 20 simulations with N= 500 in each batch (solid line) and the number of cells in one of the batches (dashed line).
Figure 5Comparison of the NDFs computed with deterministic versus stochastic reactions. NDFs computed with deterministic dynamics are marked as "Deter. Rxn" whereas the ones with stochastic reaction occurrence are marked as "Stoch. Rxn". For all deterministic simulations, the cell population was initiated with 20 cells and N= 104. For all stochastic simulations batches of 20 simulations were run with N= 500. In all cases sampling was performed at t = 300 min. Panel (a): [I] = 10 μM. Panel (b): [I] = 24 μM. Panel (c): [I] = 50 μM. All other parameters as in Table 3.
Figure 6Comparison of the average stationary behavior of the CPME model that incorporates deterministic reaction dynamics with the steady state of the structured continuum model. [I] = 24 μM for all simulations and all other parameters as in Table 3. Panel (a): Predictions from the cell population model agree with those from the structured continuum model when the average values for A/V and [O]are used. For the solid S-shaped curve, the average values for A/V and [O]were taken from the population simulations. For the dashed curve, the average values were estimated using Eqs. 8 and 9. Panel (b): a representative bimodal NDF and the corresponding averages and standard deviation.
Figure 7Comparison of the dynamical behavior of the CPME model that incorporates deterministic reaction dynamics with that of the structured continuum model. Parameters as in Table 3 unless otherwise noted. Panels (a, b): Transient dynamics of the population mean for the switching from the low ([I] = 0 μM) to the high state ([I] = 60 μM) (panel a) and conversely (panel b). For the dashed curve (continuum 1), the average values for [O]and A/V were calculated from Eqs. 8 and 9, and for the dash-dotted curve (continuum 2) they were taken from the population simulations. Panel (c): As in panel (a) but with k= 0.025 min-1, k= 0.0005 min-1, λ= 0.001155. Panel (d): The distribution of the division times (for comparison with the switching times).
Figure 8Comparisons of cell chain probability distribution functions with cell population NDFs. Panel (a): For the population distribution, a batch of 20 simulations was run with N= 500, [I] = 24 μM and the nominal parameter set (Table 3) and sampled at t = 500 min. For the cell chain simulation, tfinal = 105 min and samples were taken periodically in time with Δt = 10 min. Panel (b): as in panel (a) but with 100-fold faster lacY transcription (k= 50 min-1, k= 1 min-1) and slower translation (k= 0.3 min-1). The simulation batch consisted of 20 simulations and was sampled at t = 250 min. The cell line was tracked for 105 min of simulated time.