Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Phys Biol. 2016 Jan 29;13(1):016002. doi: 10.1088/1478-3975/13/1/016002

TABLE III.

The first and second rows are the basic and ultra-sensitive response respectively, to a cAMP wave with speed 0.34 mm/min, period of 8.04 min and full-width half-max of 0.364 mm. The third and fourth rows are the basic and ultra-sensitive response respectively, to a cAMP wave with speed 0.284 mm/min, period of 12.75 min and full-width half-max of 0.783 mm. The final row is the ultra-sensitive response to the same wide wave when all the rate parameters in Table II are increased by a factor of 3. Empty cells imply the same values as the corresponding cells in the preceding row. Comparing the first two rows, the ultra-sensitive model has a three-fold advantage over the basic LEGI model. Firstly, the difference in effectors is higher for the rising phase while in the falling phase of the wave this difference is lower, compared to the basic model. Secondly, the active effector levels achieved are also higher for both edges, while the difference in peak active effector levels also increases compared to the basic model. Comparing the first and third rows, we can say that for an almost 4-fold decrease in the cAMP gradient across the cell, the difference in effectors for the rising phase drops more significantly than the difference during falling phase for the wider waves in comparison to the regular waves. The ultra-sensitive model improves the response for the wider waves in a similar fashion to the regular wives, namely, increasing the asymmetry in effector difference between rising and falling phases, increasing peak active effector levels at both edges while increasing the difference in the peak effector levels. Increasing the LEGI rate parameters results in a more effective inactivation, which causes effector levels to drop. The faster LEGI dynamics for the same MG dynamics results in a greater polarization in active effector levels in the falling phase of the wave while the rising phase response is comparable to the preceding case.

Peak Difference in cAMP [nM]
Peak Difference in Effector [a.u.]
Peak Effector (Front) [a.u.] Peak Effector (Back) [a.u.]
Rising Phase Falling Phase Rising Phase Falling Phase
5.846 −3.865 0.01 −0.0031 0.152 0.143
— — 0.145 −0.001 0.674 0.544
1.506 −1.087 0.002 −0.001 0.13 0.128
— — 0.047 −0.0007 0.335 0.288
— — 0.043 −0.0015 0.109 0.067