| Literature DB >> 24691408 |
Yen Ling Koon1, Cheng Gee Koh2, Keng-Hwee Chiam3.
Abstract
Intracellular transport of proteins by motors along cytoskeletal filaments is crucial to the proper functioning of many eukaryotic cells. Since most proteins are synthesized at the cell body, mechanisms are required to deliver them to the growing periphery. In this article, we use computational modeling to study the strategies of protein transport in the context of JNK (c-JUN NH2-terminal kinase) transport along microtubules to the terminals of neuronal cells. One such strategy for protein transport is for the proteins of the JNK signaling cascade to bind to scaffolds, and to have the whole protein-scaffold cargo transported by kinesin motors along microtubules. We show how this strategy outperforms protein transport by diffusion alone, using metrics such as signaling rate and signal amplification. We find that there exists a range of scaffold concentrations for which JNK transport is optimal. Increase in scaffold concentration increases signaling rate and signal amplification but an excess of scaffolds results in the dilution of reactants. Similarly, there exists a range of kinesin motor speeds for which JNK transport is optimal. Signaling rate and signal amplification increases with kinesin motor speed until the speed of motor translocation becomes faster than kinase/scaffold-motor binding. Finally, we suggest experiments that can be performed to validate whether, in physiological conditions, neuronal cells do indeed adopt such an optimal strategy. Understanding cytoskeletal-assisted protein transport is crucial since axonal and cell body accumulation of organelles and proteins is a histological feature in many human neurodegenerative diseases. In this paper, we have shown that axonal transport performance changes with altered transport component concentrations and transport speeds wherein these aspects can be modulated to improve axonal efficiency and prevent or slowdown axonal deterioration.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24691408 PMCID: PMC3972164 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092437
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Schematic of model.
(a) Schematic of a cell showing assisted-transport of proteins involved in the JNK signaling cascade, namely JNK and MKK7, by KIF5 (motor) via association with JIP1 (scaffold) from the cell body towards the cell periphery such as neurite tips. KIF5-bound proteins are transported along the microtubule track as depicted by the black arrow, indicating concerted direction of movement towards neurite tips. Proteins not bound to KIF5 diffuse as illustrated by the jagged black arrow. (b) Reactions modeled in the JNK signaling cascade. JIP1 serves as the scaffold for the recruitment of JNK and MKK7. It can be transported along microtubule tracks by the motor KIF5. Red arrows denote reactions with Michaelis-Menten kinetics. Green arrows denote reactions modeled using mass action kinetics.
List of reactions and their corresponding rate constants.
| Reactions | Rate Constants |
| JNK+MKK7 |
|
|
| |
|
| |
| JIP1-JNK+MKK7 |
|
|
| |
|
| |
| JIP1-MKK7+JNK |
|
|
| |
|
| |
| JNK*+M3/6 |
|
|
| |
|
| |
| KIF5-JIP1-JNK+MKK7 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| KIF5-JIP1-MKK7+JNK |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| JNK+JIP1 |
|
|
| |
| MKK7+JIP1 |
|
|
| |
| JNK+KIF5-JIP1 |
|
|
| |
| MKK7+KIF5-JIP1 |
|
|
| |
| KIF5+JIP1 |
|
|
| |
| KIF5+JIP1-JNK |
|
|
| |
| KIF5+JIP1-MKK7 |
|
|
|
Values of rate constants were chosen to be similar to estimates in [23].
Values of rate constants were estimated.
Diffusion coefficients and initial distribution of all species modeled.
| Molecular Species | Initial Distribution (µM) | Diffusion Coefficient Notation | Diffusion Coefficient |
| JNK | [JNK] ( | DJNK | 10 |
| JIP1 | [JIP1] ( | DJIP1 | 10 |
| MKK7 | [MKK7] ( | DMKK7 | 10 |
| JNK* | [JNK*] ( | DJNK* | 10 |
| M3/6 | [M3/6] ( | DM3/6 | 10 |
| JIP1-JNK | [JIP1-JNK] ( | DJIP1–JNK | 10 |
| JNK-MKK7 | [JNK-MKK7] ( | DJNK–MKK7 | 7.07 |
| JIP1-MKK7 | [JIP1-MKK7] ( | DJIP1–MKK7 | 10 |
| JIP1-JNK-MKK7 | [JIP1-JNK-MKK7] ( | DJIP1–JNK–MKK7 | 5.77 |
| JNK*-M3/6 | [JNK*-M3/6] ( | DJNK*–M3/6 | 10 |
| KIF5 | [KIF5] ( | - | - |
| KIF5-JIP1 | [KIF5-JIP1] ( | - | - |
| KIF5-JIP1-JNK | [KIF5-JIP1-JNK] ( | - | - |
| KIF5-JIP1-MKK7 | [KIF5-JIP1-MKK7] ( | - | - |
| KIF5-JIP1-JNK-MKK7 | [KIF5-JIP1-JNK-MKK7] ( | - | - |
Diffusion coefficients were chosen to be similar to estimates in [72].
Differential equations of all species modeled.
| Molecular Species | Differential Equations |
| JNK |
|
| JIP1 |
|
| MKK7 |
|
| JNK* |
|
| M3/6 |
|
| JIP1-JNK |
|
| JNK-MKK7 |
|
| JIP1-MKK7 |
|
| JIP1-JNK-MKK7 |
|
| JNK*-M3/6 |
|
| KIF5 |
|
| KIF5-JIP1 |
|
| KIF5-JIP1-JNK |
|
| KIF5-JIP1-MKK7 |
|
| KIF5-JIP1-JNK-MKK7 |
|
Notations in the table are represented by the following:
A1 = k 1⋅[JNK]⋅[MKK7] −k 1⋅[JNK-MKK7].
A2 = k 2⋅ [JIP1-JNK]⋅[MKK7] −k 2⋅[JIP1-JNK-MKK7].
A3 = k 3⋅[JIP1-MKK7]⋅[JNK] −k 3⋅[JIP1-JNK-MKK7].
A4 = k 4⋅[JNK*]⋅[M3/6] −k 4⋅[JNK*-M3/6].
A5 = k 5⋅[KIF5-JIP1-JNK]⋅[MKK7] −k 5⋅[KIF5-JIP1-JNK-MKK7].
A6 = k 6⋅[KIF5-JIP1-MKK7]⋅[JNK] −k 6⋅[KIF5-JIP1-JNK-MKK7].
K1 = k 1⋅[JNK-MKK7].
K2 = k 2⋅[JIP1-JNK-MKK7].
K3 = k 3⋅[JIP1-JNK-MKK7].
K4 = k 4⋅[JNK*-M3/6].
K5 = k 5⋅[KIF5-JIP1-JNK-MKK7].
B1 = b1⋅[JNK]⋅[JIP1] −u1⋅[JIP1-JNK].
B2 = b2⋅[MKK7]⋅[JIP1] −u2⋅[JIP1-MKK7].
B3 = b3⋅[KIF5-JIP1]⋅[JNK] −u3⋅[KIF5-JIP1-JNK].
B4 = b4⋅[KIF5-JIP1]⋅[MKK7] −u4⋅[KIF5-JIP1-MKK7].
B5 = b5⋅[JIP1]⋅[KIF5] −u5⋅[KIF5-JIP1].
B6 = b6⋅[JIP1-JNK]⋅[KIF5] −u6⋅[KIF5-JIP1-JNK].
B7 = b7⋅[JIP1-MKK7]⋅[KIF5] −u7⋅[KIF5-JIP1-MKK7].
Figure 2Kymograph of JNK* activity.
Kymograph plots of JNK* activity (red = low, yellow/white = high) for (a) and (b) . Comparison between (a) and (b) reveals that JNK that is scaffolded and transported on the cytoskeleton (case (b)) can result in delivery of JNK and activation to JNK* at the cell periphery more efficiently that relying on diffusion alone (case (a)). Maximum value of JNK* attained at the cell periphery in (b) is 0.0645 µM which is more than that achieved by diffusion alone (0.0389 µM). Also, in (b), JNK* at the cell periphery attains its maximum value at 490 seconds whereas diffusion alone requires 3300 seconds.
Figure 3Signaling rate for various values of and .
(a) Signaling rate, , for fixed increases with increasing . (b) Signaling rate for fixed increases with increasing . (c) Signaling rate for a range of and . Four distinct regions can be distinguished (labeled 1 to 4) and demarcated by black dashed lines. Region 1 is defined by and Region 2 by . Signaling rate is low in Regions 1 and 2. In moderate values of and lies Region 3 where signaling rate is high and increases with both and . Region 4 lies beyond Region 3 and is characterized by low signaling rate even at high values of and . The blue dashed lines denote the cases illustrated in (a) and (b).
Figure 4Signal amplification for various values of and .
(a) Signal amplification, , for fixed and varying . (b) Signal amplification for fixed and varying . In both cases, there exists a maximum value of and hence an optimal value of and to attain this maximum. (c) Signal amplification for a range of and . Highest value of signal amplification was attained at moderate levels of and . Four distinct regions can be identified (labeled 1 to 4) and demarcated by black dashed lines. Region 1 is defined by and Region 2 by . Signal amplification is low in Regions 1 and 2. In moderate values of and lie Region 3 where signal amplification is increased and exhibits a biphasic behaviour in both and . Region 4 lies beyond Region 3 and is characterized by low signal amplification even at high values of and . The blue dashed lines denotes the cases illustrate in (a) and (b).
Figure 5Values of and for which signal amplification is optimum depend on signaling parameters.
The value of for which signal amplification is optimum increases with (a) increasing M3/6 concentration, and (c) increasing JNK concentration. The value of for which signal amplification is optimum increases with (b) increasing KIF5 concentration. (d) However, this value of decreases with increasing JNK concentration.
Figure 6Phase diagram to summarize the possible strategies utilized by the cell.
(a) In the first strategy denoted in Region 1 where , motor proteins are moving too slowly for efficient transport. Scaffold proteins are absent in the second strategy (Region 2, ) and thus proteins are unable to hitch onto motor proteins and have to rely on slow diffusion to reach the cell periphery. The optimum strategy is the third strategy denoted by Region 3 and involves moderate scaffold concentration and moderate motor speed. In the last strategy denoted by Region 4, proteins are not bound to motor proteins either because motor proteins are moving too quickly for binding to occur or scaffolds are in such abundance that binding between proteins and motors will preferentially be involving empty scaffolds.(b) Schematic illustrating how the proteins are moving in each of the four strategies.