Systematic analysis of noise reduction properties of coupled and isolated feed-forward loops.

Cells can maintain their homeostasis in a noisy environment since their signaling pathways can filter out noise somehow. Several network motifs have been proposed for biological noise filtering and, among these, feed-forward loops have received special attention. Specific feed-forward loops show noise reducing capabilities, but we notice that this feature comes together with a reduced signal transducing performance. In posttranslational signaling pathways feed-forward loops do not function in isolation, rather they are coupled with other motifs to serve a more complex function. Feed-forward loops are often coupled to other feed-forward loops, which could affect their noise-reducing capabilities. Here we systematically study all feed-forward loop motifs and all their pairwise coupled systems with activation-inactivation kinetics to identify which networks are capable of good noise reduction, while keeping their signal transducing performance. Our analysis shows that coupled feed-forward loops can provide better noise reduction and, at the same time, can increase the signal transduction of the system. The coupling of two coherent 1 or one coherent 1 and one incoherent 4 feed-forward loops can give the best performance in both of these measures.

Introduction

Random fluctuations in molecular levels causes noise in various biological processes [1-3]. Cells must make crucial decisions in such noisy molecular environment thus their decision-making system should be able to control stochastic fluctuations. Extrinsic noises can be caused by the noisy environment around cells [4], whereas low-copy number molecules generate random fluctuations, which we term intrinsic noise [5-7]. This intrinsic noise is directly proportional to the square root of the number of molecules presents in system [8]. The resultant fluctuations in molecule numbers might result in increased noise in processes controlled by low-abundance molecules. Gene expression is a typical example, where a few copies of transcription factors influence the transcription [9] of several genes.

Many people have so far examined how this noise does not affect the homeostatic behavior of cells. Special wiring in the molecular interaction network was suggested to minimize noise. In order to illustrate how a biological network may operate as a low-pass filter, engineering ideas were transferred into biology. Typical network motifs that might be used as noise filters were identified. Special interest was drawn among these to feed-forward loop (FFL) motifs [10]. In a feed-forward loop, a molecule both directly and indirectly affects the activity of a downstream target [11]. The conventional depiction of an FFL comprises of 3 nodes, where X directly regulates Y and Z, and Y also affects Z, leading to an extra indirect effect between X and Z (S1A Fig). In our illustrations, we also include a signaling molecule S, which provides the initial input to X (Fig 1A). If the direct arm connecting X and Z has the same sign as the indirect arm (through Y), we have a coherent feed-forward loop (cFFL). If the two arms have the opposite signs, then it is called an incoherent feed-forward loop (iFFL). A type-1 cFFL (c1FFL) contains only activation steps and it was identified as the most common three component network motif in several biological systems. It was also identified that c1FFL can work as a noise reducing low-pass filter [12,13].

Fig 1

Network motifs and the input-output test ran on them.

Feed-forward loop (A), annihilation module (B), combination of feed-forward loops, which contain traces of the annihilation module: multi-input coupled feed-forward loop (minp-FFL) (C) and multi-intermediate coupled feed-forward loop (mint-FFL) (D)–pointed-end arrows can stand for activating or inhibiting interactions. AND or OR logical gates are considered for all FFL models, but in minp-FFL logic gates function at two separate levels leading to 4 possible systems: fully AND, fully OR, upper-AND-lower-OR (uAND-lOR) and upper-OR-lower-AND (uOR-lAND) (E). In all models, the input signal (S) was driven by super-Poissonian noise (the coefficient of variation in percentage (% CV) at all average input values is presented and the resulting Fano factor of 1.83 at all average input levels is also noted.) (F). The average output level and the noise of the output species Z was registered for all input levels, leading to reduced Fano factor and coefficient of variation (% CV) values, which still depend on the average input level (G).

Noise attenuation can be also achieved by a negative feedback loop, which is also widely observed in biological regulator networks [14-16]. Such noise filtering capabilities are not restricted to the regulation of mRNA levels [17], but signaling pathways should also be able to filter out noise when a signal is received through the activation of membrane receptors. The linear pathway of three mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPK) is also capable of noise reduction [18]. Noise reduction was further explored in posttranslational regulatory networks, and many additional motifs were found as noise filters. The annihilation module has two molecules with correlated production and combined degradation (Fig 1B), which serves as an efficient noise reduction motif but imposes a delay on the system. The combination of the annihilation module with an iFFL resulted in a very effective noise-reducing annihilation filter that does not even add a delay in the system [19]. Indeed, these network motifs usually cannot be observed in isolation, but they are coupled to each other. For instance, Gershom Bur et al. showed that coupled coherent and incoherent feed-forward loops regulate immune cells [20]. Another example is the dense crosstalk between MAPK pathways. Coupling of specific feed-forward loops was also found in other systems [21]. Such coupled FFLs have double-input and double-output reactions (Fig 1C and 1D), similar to the ones observed in the annihilation module (Fig 1B). This raises the possibility that such coupled FFLs could be quite efficient in noise reduction.

A very effective noise reduction system would eliminate the effects of any input on the system, but lose the capacity for the signal transduction [22,23]. A signal processing network should reduce the noise affecting the cells but should be able to respond to meaningful changes [24]. Low-pass filters can nicely deal with this, but a perfect implementation of these in biological systems is still lacking. Here we test systematically all possible combinations of FFLs and compare their noise reducing and signal transducing capabilities to the performance of single FFLs and linear three-layered pathways with matching parameter sets. For this analysis we consider posttranslational modifications activating and inactivating molecules at all layers of the FFLs.

Results

Coupled feed-forward loops can be categorized as multi-input coupled feed-forward loops (minp-FFL) (Fig 1C) and multi-intermediate coupled feed-forward loops (mint-FFL) (Fig 1D). Depending on the signs of the individual interactions, the coupled FFLs could be fully coherent, fully incoherent or a mixture of coherent and incoherent. 47 possible FFL and combined FFL networks were identified (S1 Fig). If several molecules impact the component downstream, the two input signals can influence the objective separately (OR logic gate) or together (AND logic gate). In the case of multi-input coupled feed-forward loops (minp-FFL), such logic gates appear at two levels in the system, introducing four possible combinations: fully AND, fully OR, upper-AND-lower-OR (uAND-lOR) and upper-OR-lower-AND (uOR-lAND) (Fig 1E). When the incoming signals have similar sign effects on the target molecule, both OR and AND gates can be considered; however, when the regulations have opposite signs, only one gate type can be considered, which is not fully a classical OR or AND gate, but it is closer to an OR gate, so we will use this notation in the text. In the case of minp-FFLs, other combinations also drop out. With these restrictions, we ended up investigating 59 models of possible FFL combinations to compare their behavior to 12 FFLs and 4 possible linear chain models where only a single positive or negative effect runs through a three-component system (S1 Fig).

Since we focus on noise reduction in signaling pathways, we consider activation and inactivation steps as post-translational modifications. Post-translational modifications, such as phosphorylation, often happen at multiple sites on target molecules. We consider two versions of all models. In one-step modification models, there is a single mass-action conversion between active and inactive forms, while in two-step modification models, the transition happens through an intermediate. Such two-step processes give similar dynamics to back-and-forth enzymatic reactions, also termed as Goldbeter-Koshland switches [25-27]. In the paper we focus on single-step modification models. The two-step modification models are presented in the supplement and only discussed in the main text. At each layer of the regulation, we consider the total abundance of molecules to be 60 arbitrary unit. The parameters of each system were set to the same values at each layer, only halving the effects of regulators when functioning in an AND gate, to keep the average output the same at an input value of 1. The parameters had to be chosen in a way that neither of the network models would end up saturating the activation of all molecules, nor should they inactivate all molecules either. Coherent activating and coherent inhibiting systems were also considered, and they move output in opposite directions, thus the chosen parameter set restricted the input-output relationship and the noise reducing capabilities of the best networks. The exact choice of these parameters to ensure the total molecule number never gets saturated, and the selected values are given in the supplementary text (S1 Text).

Stochastic dynamical equations for any Chemical Reaction Networks (CRNs) can be solved by the Chemical Master Equation (CME) [28]. But solving the CME could be challenging and with large molecule numbers, almost impossible. Analysis of the stochastic nature of CRNs can be done by either rigorous continuous-time Markov chain (CTMC) [29] or Gillespie Simulation [30]. An intermediate solution is the use of linear noise approximation (LNA) [31]. Linear noise approximation is a fast approximation method for CRNs [32]. We ran LNA on our models to calculate the distribution of each species by coding the models in the recently released ‘Kaemika’ tool [33]. In the supplementary text (S1 Text) we provide annotated examples of the Kaemika codes, explaining how to create each of the presented models.

To test the noise reducing and signal transducing capabilities of the investigated systems, we implemented a five-step increase and decrease in the input signal ‘S’ in our models (Fig 1F) and followed how the output layer ‘Z’ responds to these changes (Fig 1G). By introducing a bimolecular production term, a super-Poissonian [34] noise was generated on the input S molecule and the noise in the output layer was registered. Interestingly we did not notice major delays in output responses as the mean input was changed in an up-and-down fashion (Fig 1F and 1G). To quantify noise, we have calculated the coefficient of variation in percentage (% CV) for all molecule types. Fano factor measures noisiness of the signal, but CV is a better measure of signal-to-noise ratio, which is relevant in signal transduction, thus we report these values on plots. Coefficient of variation is the ratio of the standard deviation and the mean of the random process [35, 36]. Poissonian noise has a coefficient of variation of (mean value)-1/2 and a Fano factor of 1. A lower coefficient of variation (or Fano factor) indicates greater noise reduction. We quantified the noise reducing capabilities of the networks by calculating the slope of mean output–mean input relation, where we plot these values for the five different input levels (Fig 2A and 2B). We use this ‘slope’ on plots as a measure of signal transduction capacity, with higher slopes meaning better signal transduction, while negative slopes mean signal inversion.

Fig 2

Signal transducing and noise reducing capabilities of linear chain and simple feed-forward loop network motifs.

Mean input–mean output relation in the investigated post-translational coherent (A) and incoherent (B) FFLs observed at 5 different input levels. The noise reducing capabilities—measured by the coefficient of variation in percentage (%CV) at all tested input values in all FFLs (C). The coefficient of variations in percentage (%CV) of panel C at input = 6 is plotted against the slopes of the input-output relations of panels A and B to show how each network performs in noise reduction and signal transduction (D). The performance of linear chain motifs (S6 Fig) is also added to panel D. All simulations were run with one-step post-translational modification models and the fixed parameter sets presented in the S1 Text.

Comparison of simple feed-forward loops

Both coherent and incoherent FFLs can give positive or negative slopes, depending on the signs of each individual regulatory step (Fig 2A and 2B). Because all of the outputs have a lower coefficient of variation than the input coefficient of variation value, each of these FFLs can reduce noise (Fig 2C). Larger input results in lower coefficient of variation, since the average molecule numbers also increase with larger input, leading to reduced noise. At these larger input values, the FFLs show larger difference. We used results from the simulations with input = 6 and plotted %CVs against the slopes from (Fig 2A and 2B) to demonstrate how FFLs compare in terms of noise reduction and signal transduction (Fig 2D). Interestingly better noise reduction (lower coefficient of variation) correlates with better signal transduction (larger slope). The c1- OR network performs the best in both measures, what is not surprising as it was shown to be able to work as a low-pass filter [37] and also as a good signal transducer [23]. As reference points, we have also plotted the coefficient of variation and slope produced by linear chain models (Fig 2D). We see that some noise reduction can be achieved by such a simple signaling cascade, due to the nonlinearity caused by the presence of a limited number of total molecules, which are converted between active and inactive forms. 3 out of 4 models show almost 0 signal transducing capabilities. The type-1 chain model, which contains only positive regulations and resembles the structure of a MAPK pathway, shows some signal transducing capabilities. Such systems show ultrasensitive behavior [38], thus filtering out noise, but also turning signal transduction into an analog-digital converter.

Comparison of coupled feed-forward loops

The 33 coupled multi-input FFLs (Fig 1C) and 26 multi-intermediate FFLs (Fig 1D) show various input-output correlations when tested in the same way as simple FFLs (S3 and S4 Figs). The noise reduction capabilities of these networks were also measured by the coefficient of variation in percentage (%CV) and plotted against the slopes of the input-output correlations as a proxy of signal transduction capacity (Fig 3). Interestingly, networks with better noise reduction usually show better signal transduction as well–there is a general negative correlation between coefficient of variation and slope (Fig 3). The best performing networks are coherent multi-input FFLs. The best noise reducer is the system where all reactions activate their targets, and the two branches can work independently (c1c1-minp-OR). The best signal transduction we see at a similar coherent, multi-input FFL, but here the long arm of the FFL contains two inverting inhibitory reactions (c4c4-minp-OR). We also observe that coupling between two FFLs at the input level gives better noise reduction than coupling between the same FFLs at the intermediate level (compare networks with similar initial letters in Fig 3A and 3B).

Fig 3

Signal transducing and noise reducing capabilities of coupled feed-forward loop network motifs.

The coefficient of variation in percentage (% CV) of each combined FFLs was calculated at input = 6 and plotted against the slopes of the input-output relations of S3 and S4 Figs to show how each multi-input coupled FFL (A) and multi-intermediate FFL (B) network performs in noise reduction and signal transduction. All simulations were run with one-step post-translational modification models and the fixed parameter sets presented in the S1 Text.

By comparing Fig 2D with the two panels of Fig 3, we can see that coupled FFLs have better noise reducing capabilities than simple FFLs. To compare the best performing simple and combined FFL networks (Fig 4A) in more detail, we have plotted the mean values, highlighted the standard deviations, and labeled the coefficient of variations in percentage (% CV) and slopes of the outputs of each of these networks (Fig 4B–4J). Here, the standard input changes (Fig 1F) were applied to all networks and the outputs show that c1c1-minp-FFL-OR is the best noise reducer (lowest % CV)) and c4c4-minp-OR is the best signal transducer (highest slope value). The basic incoherent 4 FFL also performs quite well, and its various combinations with coherent 1 FFL lead to the best performing combined FFL where the two FFLs are different. We can notice that large negative slopes indicate good inverted signal transduction. FFLs including c2 coherent FFL not only have good, inverted signal transduction but also reasonable noise reduction capabilities.

Fig 4

Comparison of noise reducing and signal transducing performance of the best performing FFL motifs.

The best performing simple and combined FFL networks are plotted in (A). The corresponding panels with similar layout (B-J) show the performance of each of these networks for the input change presented in Fig 1F. The mean of the output active forms of Z molecules of panel A are plotted with solid blue lines, ± standard deviation is plotted with shading, and coefficient of variation in percentage (% CV) values and slopes of input-output relation curves are labeled on all plots. All simulations were run with one-step post-translational modification models and the fixed parameter sets presented in the S1 Text.

So far, we have considered a single step modification reaction between active and inactive forms at all levels of the considered FFL networks. Posttranslational signal transducing networks often function with multisite modifications, which can lead to highly non-linear behavior [39,40]. To test if multisite modifications can improve the performance of FFLs, we have created a version of the model where at each layer, molecules go through two modification steps, which are both induced by the same activator. The comparison of input-output relation slopes and coefficient of variation in percentage (% CV) produced by these networks and similar networks with single modifications shows that multisite modification increases both % CV and signal transduction (Fig 5). Thus, multisite modification does not help the noise reduction capabilities of FFLs, but it does increase the signal transducing capabilities of FFL motifs.

Fig 5

Comparison between FFLs containing one step and two steps modifications at each regulatory layer.

Input-output relation slope and coefficient of variation in percentage (% CV) data from Figs 2D and 3 are plotted together with similar data from systems where at each layer, molecules go through 2 modification steps before getting activated. Simple FFLs (A), multi-input (B) and multi-intermediate (C) coupled FFLs all show that two step modification systems have a higher % CV. All simulations were run with the fixed parameter sets presented in the S1 Text.

On the same plots, we can notice that coupled FFLs with AND gates tend to have a worse noise reducing capability than networks with OR gates (Fig 5). On the busier figure Fig 3, it was harder to notice this trend, but the same relationship holds for all networks and especially when comparing good and bad noise reducers (Fig 6). Through parallel signaling in coupled FFLs, the noise in the input signal travels down to lower layers of the network and these correlated noises enhance their joint effect when they meet at the output layer with an AND gate. If they meet at an OR gate, this increase in noise seems to be reduced.

Fig 6

Comparison between the noise reducing capabilities of FFLs containing AND and OR logic gates.

Data from Figs 2D and 3 are displayed to show how the coefficient of variation (% CV) of AND gate containing networks compare to OR gate driven networks. OR gate containing networks show a lower CV% than AND gate networks (are below the diagonal) and this finding holds true for simple FFLs (A), multi-input (B), and multi-intermediate (C) coupled FFLs. All FFL combinations where both OR and AND gates are possible are plotted. The fixed parameter sets given in the S1 Text were used in all simulations.

Discussion

Although biological systems are noisy, they are resilient and make reliable decisions when integrating environmental information [41]. Signaling pathways provide rapid response to ligands binding to extracellular receptors by initiating posttranslational modifications on downstream molecules. MAPK pathways have been heavily investigated by mathematical models [38,42,43] and we have learned a lot about their dynamical behavior and signal transducing capabilities. At the same time, feed-forward loop network motifs were investigated by similar approaches to learn about their noise reducing and adaptive behaviors [11,44,45]. Here we have combined these two concepts to study how coupled three-layer posttranslational signaling units can perform noise reduction and signal transduction.

Our systematic study of all possible combinations of FFLs identified that coupled FFLs are better noise reducers and better signal transducers than corresponding single FFLs. This is especially true when OR gates are functioning in multi-input steps of the pathways. Posttranslational modifications often happen in multiple steps [38,40]. We have shown that such highly non-linear transitions make FFL-based signal transduction noisier, but at the same time, this can improve their signal transducing capabilities.

A few interesting features emerge from our analysis: The FFLs which show the best signal transduction capacity all contain an activatory direct arm from input to output (Figs 2D and 3). This means that node X should activate node Z directly for good signal transduction. It can also be observed that good signal transduction can be observed when at least one copy of the intermediate molecule Y is inhibited by the input node X and the output gates follow an OR logic. These all hold for the FFLs c4c4-minp-OR, c4i1-minp-OR, c4c4-mint-OR, c1i4-mint-OR, c4-OR, which have the highest signal transducing capacity. On the other hand, efficient noise reduction we see in FFLs with a similar activatory direct arm between X and Z, but here this is combined with a reaction, where Y activates Z (Figs 2D and 3) and again, multi-input steps follow an OR logic. Following this description, we found c1c1-minp-OR, c1i4-minp-OR, c1c1-mint-OR, c1i4-mint-OR, c1-OR, i4-OR to be the best noise reducer FFLs.

We were speculating what causes the good noise reducing capabilities of some FFLs, while others perform bad in this task. When we perturb the input with smaller or larger noise, we did not see major differences in the noise level at the output layer (S7 Fig), showing that the noise at each layer of posttranslational FFLs is their inherent feature and quite independent on the noise at the input layer. This finding holds for all layers of the networks (S7 Fig). Interestingly, plots of noisiness (% CV) in each layer of FFLs shows great difference between good and bad noise reducing FFLs (Fig 7). In good noise reducers the noise is getting decreased as we go to lower layers of FFLs (with little twists in incoherent FFLs), while in bad noise reducers often the middle layer (species Y) is the best noise reduced. This finding highlights that networks we claimed as bad noise reducers, could be still observed in biology, when important signals are used for cross-talking from middle layers of pathways [46]. We can also conclude from this, that good noise reducing networks at the output layers are efficient in this as noise keep reducing as signal progresses in lower layers of FFLs.

Fig 7

Noise reduction at each layers of best and worst performing FFLs.

Coefficient of variations (% CV) of each species of best noise reducing (A, C, E)and worst noise reducing (B, D, F) FFLs of different types are plotted for mean input level = 6. Simple FFLs: c1-OR (A), c3-OR (B), multi-input FFLs: c1c1-minp-OR (C), c3c3-minp-OR (D) and multi-intermediate FFLs: c1i4-mint-OR (E), c3i2-mint-OR (subplot F) were investigated here.

Our study has several limitations. We considered the total abundance of proteins at each layer to be equal, whereas for better signal amplification, the abundance increases at each layer [42]. We also limited the analysis to the coupling of two FFLs, whereas signaling pathways have much wider crosstalk [47]. Despite these, and possible other limitations, our systematic analysis provides a thorough characterization of the noise reducing and signal processing capabilities of combined FFLs. The study highlights that specially coupled FFLs of the coherent1 and 4 and the incoherent 4 types with OR logic gates can serve as good signal transducers and good noise reducers. We believe that the engineering of such coupled FFL network motifs could bring new opportunities to better control the noise and signal transduction in synthetic biological systems [48].

47 possible isolated FFL and combined FFL networks.

(A) Isolated feed-forward loops: The diagram represents the purely coherent (upper panel) and purely incoherent (lower panel) types of isolated feed-forward loops. Here, the possibilities of AND/OR types of logical gates are taken into consideration. Twelve different kinds of logical connectivity are possible. Coherent and incoherent are represented by the letters ‘c’ and ‘i’ respectively. The number next to the letter ‘c’/ ‘i’ designates the type of model (for example, c1 –coherent type 1, i4 –incoherent type 4 model). Activation and inhibition processes are shown by green and red arrow heads, respectively. The noisy input signal (S) regulates Xa, which in turn influences Ya and the output signal (Za) through the direct and indirect arms of the network. (B) Chain models: The diagram shows all the possible types of chain model. The noisy input signal (S) regulates Xa, which in turn influences Ya, and Ya influences the output signal (Za). (C) Multi-input coupled feed-forward loops: The diagram shows all the multi-input coupled feed-forward loops (minp-FFL). These networks are subcategorized into purely coherent (left panel), mixture of coherent and incoherent (middle panel) and purely incoherent (right panel) types. The input signal (S) jointly activates two nodes, X1a and X2a. These X1a, and X2a influence Ya and Za through direct and indirect regulated arms, where Za represents the output signal. The green arrows represent activation, and the red arrows represent inhibition. Depending on the network architecture, fully AND, fully OR, upper-AND-lower-OR (uAND-lOR) and upper-OR-lower-AND (uOR-lAND) types of logical gates can be considered. (D) Multi-intermediate coupled feed-forward loops: The diagram represents various types of multi-intermediate coupled feed-forward loop (mint-FFL). These networks are subdivided into purely coherent (left panel), mixture of coherent and incoherent (middle panel) and purely incoherent (right panel) types. The noisy input signal (S) regulates the node Xa. Xa acts upon Y1a, Y2a and the output signal (Za) through direct and indirect regulated arms. The green arrows represent activation, and the red arrows represent inhibition. Depending on the network architecture, AND/OR types of logical gates can be constructed.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

All the possible logic gates for the investigated models.

For the investigated network motifs, all the possible logical gates are shown here. Depending on the network architecture, fully AND, fully OR, upper-AND-lower-OR (uAND-lOR) and upper-OR-lower-AND (uOR-lAND) types of logical gates can be created. (A), (B), (C) and (D) show the types of connectivity for 12 isolated feed-forward loops (FFLs), 4 chain models, 33 multi-input coupled feed-forward loops (minp-FFLs), and 26 multi-intermediate coupled feed-forward loops (mint-FFLs), respectively.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Correlation plot for multi-input coupled feed-forward loops.

Correlation between input and output signals for multi-input coupled feed-forward loop models, with single step post translation modification of the species under parameter set k1 = k2 = k3 = 1, kp = 10, kpp = 40, ka = 5. The slopes obtained by linear regression for each model are given in the legends. Each model is categorized as purely coherent (A), a mixture of coherent-incoherent (B), and purely incoherent (C) types. Results from all networks presented in S2 Fig (AND, OR, upper-AND-lower-OR (uAND-lOR) and upper-OR-lower-AND (uOR-lAND)) are presented in this plot. Based on the signs of the interactions, both negative and positive correlations can be observed. The input was changed in five steps in each model, as presented in Fig 1F, and the outputs were recorded as in Fig 1G.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Correlation plot for multi-intermediate coupled feed-forward loops.

Input-output correlation of steady states in multi-intermediate FFLs for purely coherent (A), mixture of coherent-incoherent (B) and purely incoherent (C) networks are plotted. All possible logical connectivity (AND, OR, upper-AND-lower-OR (uAND-lOR) and upper-OR-lower-AND (uOR-lAND)) have been considered. The input was changed in five steps in each model, as presented in Fig 1F, and the outputs were recorded as in Fig 1G. For the calculation, we have considered single-step post-translation modification of the species under parameter set k1 = k2 = k3 = 1, kp = 10, kpp = 40, ka = 5.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Comparison between the estimated noise in one step and two steps post-translational modification models.

The coefficient of variation in percentage (% CV) of the output is plotted as the input to all models was changed as indicated on the abscissa. Results are shown for models with isolated FFL (A), multi-input coupled FFL (B) and multi-intermediate coupled FFL (C) under the parameter set k1 = k2 = k3 = 1, kp = 10, kpp = 40,ka = 5. In each of these panels, we compared the results between one step (solid line with a circle shaped marker) and two steps (solid line with a square shaped marker) post translational modification. Each model is represented by a unique color, varying only in the shape of the markers. We can infer that, among all the models shown in this figure, c1c1-minp-OR under one step modification, is a better noise reducer than the c1c1-minp-OR model under two step modification (B). Also, it can be understood that the OR-type of connectivity is less noisy compared to the AND-type of connectivity. This holds true for isolated-FFL (A) and multi-intermediate coupled-FFL (C) too. Furthermore, it can be stated that the multi-input coupled FFL (c1c1-minp-OR) (B) is the best noise filter compared to the rest (A, C).

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.

Correlation plot for Chain models.

We plot correlation between input and output signals of chain models, considered with single step post translation modification of the models, with parameter set k1 = k2 = k3 = 1, kp = 10, kpp = 40, ka = 5 The caption lists the slope values derived from each model. In each model, the input was modified in five steps as shown in Fig 1F, and the outputs were recorded as shown in Fig 1G.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Noise levels in each layer of a good and bad noise reducing models.

By increasing (right hand column) and decreasing (left hand column) the level of noise in the input (by changing the kinetics of S synthesis, see below in the S1 Text.) and comparing with the original noisy input (middle column), we show how noise propagating through the pathways for c1-OR (A, B, C), c1c1-minp-FFL (G, H, I), c3-OR (D, E, F), c3c3-minp-FFL (J, K, L), c1i4-mint-FFL (M, N, O), and c3i2-mint-FFL (P, Q, R) networks at mean input = 6. The level of noise in the output is largely independent of the degree of noise in the input. We consider single step post translation modification of these networks with parameter set k1 = k2 = k3 = 1, kp = 10, kpp = 40, ka = 5.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.

Model generation and parameterization.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Examples of Kaemika codes of models.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

27 Jul 2021

Dear Ms Chakravarty,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Systematic Analysis of Noise Reduction Properties of Coupled and Isolated Feed-Forward Loops" for consideration at PLOS Computational Biology.

As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Christopher Rao

Associate Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Jason Haugh

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: This manuscript aims to examine the signal transduction and noise-modulating properties of various signaling network structures comprising feedforward loops. All possible network variants are assembled, varying the type of regulation, dual input function and node duplication. The input signal varies in mean but has a constant Fano factor of 1.83. The mean and Fano factor at the output are compared to those at the input. The study identifies the best-performing network structures for signal transduction and noise reduction.

The manuscript is interesting, timely, well executed and well written. It should be publishable after the following comments are addressed.

(1) The Fano factor measures burstiness (how different a process is from the Poisson process). However, this is not the only measure of noise magnitude. To characterize the standard deviation in terms of the mean, the Coefficient of Variation (CV, defined as standard_deviation/mean) is very widely used. The CV may be preferable for characterizing the quality of signal transduction, whereas the FF is most appropriate to characterize the burstiness of gene expression. For this reason, all the plots showing Fano Factors versus slope should also be made for the CV, using a constant CV at the input.

(2) Keeping the Fano factor constant at the input makes the reader wonder, what would have happened at higher/lower input FF? It would be interesting to explore what happens if the input FF is higher or lower. The same question refers to the input CV.

(3) The manuscript examines signaling (post-translational) interactions. Similar network structures exist in transcriptional regulatory networks. It would be important to discuss how the results would apply to transcriptional regulatory interactions. A relevant reference for FFL clustering may be PMID:15018656.

(4) “…better noise reduction (lower Fano) correlates with better signal transduction (larger slope).” More specifically, this is true only for slope > 0. However, for slope < 0, better noise reduction (lower Fano) seems to correlate with worse signal transduction. Best signal transduction for slope < 0 is near -1, where the FF is the highest. The same is probably true for coupled motifs.

(5) Besides the FFL, negative feedback can effectively reduce noise, as the authors note. In addition to ref. [13], this is also described in PMID:10850721 and PMID:19279212, which may be worth citing.

Reviewer #2: I uploaded the review as an attachment.

Reviewer #3: Review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #4: In their article entitled “Systematic Analysis of Noise Reduction Properties of Coupled and Isolated Feed- Forward Loops”, Chakravarty & Csikasz-Nagy investigate how nested/coupled feed-forward loop structures of signalling pathways influence noise in signal. They use a tool called Kaemika that calculates variance by linear noise approximation. Although it is known that FFL can reduce noise, the question of how FFL can be combined for better noise reduction is interesting, and will be of interest.

However, the present paper is not well enough developed to really answer these questions, as:

1) The paper lacks a clear materials & methods section, and this it remains unclear what they actually did. I think this would be essential for the paper.

2) From what I understand, they calculate noise using LNA given one set of parameters, and it remains unclear if this result is dependent on the choice of parameters. I suppose that it is very much dependent on the time scales of each reaction, and thus other topologies might perform much better when different time scales are involved in the different layers.

3) The paper provides no intuition why noise reduction occurs. Maybe write down the LNA equations of the best performing networks, then it might be apparent why noise cancels or is reduced, and which parameters are important.

4) It is unclear if the Fano factor is not a good measure of how input noise is reduced, I would argue that the signal/noise ratio is much more important (imagine a network with a lot of input noise, i.e. where only the input noise is important - then the Fano factor would depend on the number of molecules of the output, whereas signal/noise would not). It would be therefore important for the authors to (i) clearly describe the Fano factor and the rational behind using it here.

Minor: The paper needs a thorough proof-read, a re-edit of the figures (fonts very small). The authors should introduce the notation for the FFL-classes more clearly (maybe in an initial figure), so it is immediately clear what e.g. c1i3 is.

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No: only exemplary scripts are given

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at .

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example in PLOS Biology see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Submitted filename: Review_v1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: PCOMPBIOL-D-21-00869-report.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

28 Sep 2021

Submitted filename: Review_Answers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

8 Nov 2021

Dear Ms Chakravarty,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Systematic Analysis of Noise Reduction Properties of Coupled and Isolated Feed-Forward Loops' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology.

The reviews of your revised manuscript were mixed: three recommended publication and one did not. As the majority of the reviewers were in favor of publication, we decided to accept your manuscript because we felt that it was a novel contribution to the field.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Computational Biology.

Best regards,

Christopher Rao

Associate Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Jason Haugh

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************************************************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: I would like to thank the Authors for addressing my comments.

I would like to recommend the publication of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The revision has addressed all of my previous concerns. I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed all the points. I, therefore, recommend publication.

The authors may look into the review published in Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2017. 46:131–48. The review presents a nice discussion on mixed feed-forward loop constructions. Citing the review and few lines of discussion would bring in more generality to the authors' work.

Reviewer #4: I unfortunately don't see much improvement.

Although now the authors somewhat varied the parameters, there is no clear analysis on the effects of parameters, nor are there systematic analytical results. It remains an opaque simulation study which does not provide generaliseable insights and where it is unclear how much of the results is general.

On a formal level, again many of the figures have tiny fonts and are very difficult to understand. I also maintain that it is good practice to have a clear description of methods (and not only point to supplementary material).

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: None

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

18 Nov 2021

PCOMPBIOL-D-21-00869R1

Systematic Analysis of Noise Reduction Properties of Coupled and Isolated Feed-Forward Loops

Dear Dr Chakravarty,

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology. Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Computational Biology and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Zsanett Szabo

PLOS Computational Biology | Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom ploscompbiol@plos.org | Phone +44 (0) 1223-442824 | ploscompbiol.org | @PLOSCompBiol