Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Biophysical Journal logoLink to Biophysical Journal
. 2000 Dec;79(6):2944–2953. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76531-3

Fluctuations in repressor control: thermodynamic constraints on stochastic focusing.

O G Berg 1, J Paulsson 1, M Ehrenberg 1
PMCID: PMC1301173  PMID: 11106602

Abstract

The influence of fluctuations in molecule numbers on genetic control circuits has received considerable attention. The consensus has been that such fluctuations will make regulation less precise. In contrast, it has more recently been shown that signal fluctuations can sharpen the response in a regulated process by the principle of stochastic focusing (SF) (, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 97:7148-7153). In many cases, the larger the fluctuations are, the sharper is the response. Here we investigate how fluctuations in repressor or corepressor numbers can improve the control of gene expression. Because SF is found to be constrained by detailed balance, this requires that the control loops contain driven processes out of equilibrium. Some simple and realistic out-of-equilibrium steps that will break detailed balance and make room for SF in such systems are discussed. We conclude that when the active repressors are controlled by corepressor molecules that display large ("coherent") number fluctuations or when corepressors can be irreversibly removed directly from promoter-bound repressors, the response in gene activity can become significantly sharper than without intrinsic noise. A simple experimental design to establish the possibility of SF for repressor control is suggested.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (102.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Arkin A., Ross J., McAdams H. H. Stochastic kinetic analysis of developmental pathway bifurcation in phage lambda-infected Escherichia coli cells. Genetics. 1998 Aug;149(4):1633–1648. doi: 10.1093/genetics/149.4.1633. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berg O. G. A model for the statistical fluctuations of protein numbers in a microbial population. J Theor Biol. 1978 Apr 20;71(4):587–603. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(78)90326-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berg O. G., Blomberg C. Mass action relations in vivo with application to the lac operon. J Theor Biol. 1977 Aug 7;67(3):523–533. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(77)90054-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berg O. G., Paulsson J., Ehrenberg M. Fluctuations and quality of control in biological cells: zero-order ultrasensitivity reinvestigated. Biophys J. 2000 Sep;79(3):1228–1236. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76377-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berg O. G. Time-averaged chemical potential of proteins and the detailed-balance principle (an alternative viewpoint). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1983 Sep;80(17):5302–5303. doi: 10.1073/pnas.80.17.5302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cook D. L., Gerber A. N., Tapscott S. J. Modeling stochastic gene expression: implications for haploinsufficiency. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Dec 22;95(26):15641–15646. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.26.15641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ehrenberg M., Blomberg C. Thermodynamic constraints on kinetic proofreading in biosynthetic pathways. Biophys J. 1980 Sep;31(3):333–358. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(80)85063-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Goldbeter A., Koshland D. E., Jr An amplified sensitivity arising from covalent modification in biological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Nov;78(11):6840–6844. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.11.6840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Guptasarma P. Does replication-induced transcription regulate synthesis of the myriad low copy number proteins of Escherichia coli? Bioessays. 1995 Nov;17(11):987–997. doi: 10.1002/bies.950171112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hopfield J. J. Kinetic proofreading: a new mechanism for reducing errors in biosynthetic processes requiring high specificity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 Oct;71(10):4135–4139. doi: 10.1073/pnas.71.10.4135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hopfield J. J., Yamane T., Yue V., Coutts S. M. Direct experimental evidence for kinetic proofreading in amino acylation of tRNAIle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1976 Apr;73(4):1164–1168. doi: 10.1073/pnas.73.4.1164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ko M. S. Induction mechanism of a single gene molecule: stochastic or deterministic? Bioessays. 1992 May;14(5):341–346. doi: 10.1002/bies.950140510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. McAdams H. H., Arkin A. It's a noisy business! Genetic regulation at the nanomolar scale. Trends Genet. 1999 Feb;15(2):65–69. doi: 10.1016/s0168-9525(98)01659-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. McAdams H. H., Arkin A. Stochastic mechanisms in gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Feb 4;94(3):814–819. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.3.814. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Müller-Hill B. Lac repressor. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 1971 Mar;10(3):160–172. doi: 10.1002/anie.197101601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ninio J. Kinetic amplification of enzyme discrimination. Biochimie. 1975;57(5):587–595. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9084(75)80139-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Paulsson J., Berg O. G., Ehrenberg M. Stochastic focusing: fluctuation-enhanced sensitivity of intracellular regulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 20;97(13):7148–7153. doi: 10.1073/pnas.110057697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Paulsson J., Ehrenberg M. Random signal fluctuations can reduce random fluctuations in regulated components of chemical regulatory networks. Phys Rev Lett. 2000 Jun 5;84(23):5447–5450. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Paulsson J., Ehrenberg M. Trade-off between segregational stability and metabolic burden: a mathematical model of plasmid ColE1 replication control. J Mol Biol. 1998 May 29;279(1):73–88. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1998.1751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ruusala T., Ehrenberg M., Kurland C. G. Is there proofreading during polypeptide synthesis? EMBO J. 1982;1(6):741–745. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1982.tb01240.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Spudich J. L., Koshland D. E., Jr Non-genetic individuality: chance in the single cell. Nature. 1976 Aug 5;262(5568):467–471. doi: 10.1038/262467a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Thompson R. C., Stone P. J. Proofreading of the codon-anticodon interaction on ribosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1977 Jan;74(1):198–202. doi: 10.1073/pnas.74.1.198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Biophysical Journal are provided here courtesy of The Biophysical Society

RESOURCES