IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1002965.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Fidelity of Dynamic Signaling by Noisy Biomolecular Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Clive G Bowsher
  • Margaritis Voliotis
  • Peter S Swain

Abstract

Cells live in changing, dynamic environments. To understand cellular decision-making, we must therefore understand how fluctuating inputs are processed by noisy biomolecular networks. Here we present a general methodology for analyzing the fidelity with which different statistics of a fluctuating input are represented, or encoded, in the output of a signaling system over time. We identify two orthogonal sources of error that corrupt perfect representation of the signal: dynamical error, which occurs when the network responds on average to other features of the input trajectory as well as to the signal of interest, and mechanistic error, which occurs because biochemical reactions comprising the signaling mechanism are stochastic. Trade-offs between these two errors can determine the system's fidelity. By developing mathematical approaches to derive dynamics conditional on input trajectories we can show, for example, that increased biochemical noise (mechanistic error) can improve fidelity and that both negative and positive feedback degrade fidelity, for standard models of genetic autoregulation. For a group of cells, the fidelity of the collective output exceeds that of an individual cell and negative feedback then typically becomes beneficial. We can also predict the dynamic signal for which a given system has highest fidelity and, conversely, how to modify the network design to maximize fidelity for a given dynamic signal. Our approach is general, has applications to both systems and synthetic biology, and will help underpin studies of cellular behavior in natural, dynamic environments. Author Summary: Cells do not live in constant conditions, but in environments that change over time. To adapt to their surroundings, cells must therefore sense fluctuating concentrations and ‘interpret’ the state of their environment to see whether, for example, a change in the pattern of gene expression is needed. This task is achieved via the noisy computations of biomolecular networks. But what levels of signaling fidelity can be achieved and how are dynamic signals encoded in the network's outputs? Here we present a general technique for analyzing such questions. We identify two sources of signaling error: dynamic error, which occurs when the network responds to features of the input other than the signal of interest; and mechanistic error, which arises because of the inevitable stochasticity of biochemical reactions. We show analytically that increased biochemical noise can sometimes improve fidelity and that, for genetic autoregulation, feedback can be deleterious. Our approach also allows us to predict the dynamic signal for which a given signaling network has highest fidelity and to design networks to maximize fidelity for a given signal. We thus propose a new way to analyze the flow of information in signaling networks, particularly for the dynamic environments expected in nature.

Suggested Citation

  • Clive G Bowsher & Margaritis Voliotis & Peter S Swain, 2013. "The Fidelity of Dynamic Signaling by Noisy Biomolecular Networks," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002965
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002965
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002965&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002965?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Avigdor Eldar & Michael B. Elowitz, 2010. "Functional roles for noise in genetic circuits," Nature, Nature, vol. 467(7312), pages 167-173, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alok Maity & Roy Wollman, 2020. "Information transmission from NFkB signaling dynamics to gene expression," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Christoph Zechner & Heinz Koeppl, 2014. "Uncoupled Analysis of Stochastic Reaction Networks in Fluctuating Environments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Margaritis Voliotis & Philipp Thomas & Ramon Grima & Clive G Bowsher, 2016. "Stochastic Simulation of Biomolecular Networks in Dynamic Environments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Giorgos Minas & Dan J Woodcock & Louise Ashall & Claire V Harper & Michael R H White & David A Rand, 2020. "Multiplexing information flow through dynamic signalling systems," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-18, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohammad Soltani & Cesar A Vargas-Garcia & Duarte Antunes & Abhyudai Singh, 2016. "Intercellular Variability in Protein Levels from Stochastic Expression and Noisy Cell Cycle Processes," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-23, August.
    2. Kazunari Iwamoto & Yuki Shindo & Koichi Takahashi, 2016. "Modeling Cellular Noise Underlying Heterogeneous Cell Responses in the Epidermal Growth Factor Signaling Pathway," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Lee, Julian, 2023. "Poisson distributions in stochastic dynamics of gene expression: What events do they count?," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 630(C).
    4. Lucy Ham & Megan A. Coomer & Kaan Öcal & Ramon Grima & Michael P. H. Stumpf, 2024. "A stochastic vs deterministic perspective on the timing of cellular events," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Georg Fritz & Judith A Megerle & Sonja A Westermayer & Delia Brick & Ralf Heermann & Kirsten Jung & Joachim O Rädler & Ulrich Gerland, 2014. "Single Cell Kinetics of Phenotypic Switching in the Arabinose Utilization System of E. coli," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-12, February.
    6. Laura Corrales-Guerrero & Asaf Tal & Rinat Arbel-Goren & Vicente Mariscal & Enrique Flores & Antonia Herrero & Joel Stavans, 2015. "Spatial Fluctuations in Expression of the Heterocyst Differentiation Regulatory Gene hetR in Anabaena Filaments," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    7. Singh, Abhyudai & Vahdat, Zahra & Xu, Zikai, 2019. "Time-triggered stochastic hybrid systems with two timer-dependent resets," OSF Preprints u8fzg, Center for Open Science.
    8. Ming Ni & Antoine L Decrulle & Fanette Fontaine & Alice Demarez & Francois Taddei & Ariel B Lindner, 2012. "Pre-Disposition and Epigenetics Govern Variation in Bacterial Survival upon Stress," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Jan Hasenauer & Christine Hasenauer & Tim Hucho & Fabian J Theis, 2014. "ODE Constrained Mixture Modelling: A Method for Unraveling Subpopulation Structures and Dynamics," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Martiny, Emil S. & Jensen, Mogens H. & Heltberg, Mathias S., 2022. "Detecting limit cycles in stochastic time series," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 605(C).
    11. Ziya Kalay & Takahiro K Fujiwara & Akihiro Kusumi, 2012. "Confining Domains Lead to Reaction Bursts: Reaction Kinetics in the Plasma Membrane," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, March.
    12. Margaritis Voliotis & Philipp Thomas & Ramon Grima & Clive G Bowsher, 2016. "Stochastic Simulation of Biomolecular Networks in Dynamic Environments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    13. Vera Bettenworth & Simon Vliet & Bartosz Turkowyd & Annika Bamberger & Heiko Wendt & Matthew McIntosh & Wieland Steinchen & Ulrike Endesfelder & Anke Becker, 2022. "Frequency modulation of a bacterial quorum sensing response," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Gabriele Micali & Gerardo Aquino & David M Richards & Robert G Endres, 2015. "Accurate Encoding and Decoding by Single Cells: Amplitude Versus Frequency Modulation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, June.
    15. Jessica A Lee & Siavash Riazi & Shahla Nemati & Jannell V Bazurto & Andreas E Vasdekis & Benjamin J Ridenhour & Christopher H Remien & Christopher J Marx, 2019. "Microbial phenotypic heterogeneity in response to a metabolic toxin: Continuous, dynamically shifting distribution of formaldehyde tolerance in Methylobacterium extorquens populations," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-38, November.
    16. Chen, Aimin & Tian, Tianhai & Chen, Yiren & Zhou, Tianshou, 2022. "Stochastic analysis of a complex gene-expression model," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    17. Abhyudai Singh & Mohammad Soltani, 2013. "Quantifying Intrinsic and Extrinsic Variability in Stochastic Gene Expression Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Angélique Richard & Loïs Boullu & Ulysse Herbach & Arnaud Bonnafoux & Valérie Morin & Elodie Vallin & Anissa Guillemin & Nan Papili Gao & Rudiyanto Gunawan & Jérémie Cosette & Ophélie Arnaud & Jean-Ja, 2016. "Single-Cell-Based Analysis Highlights a Surge in Cell-to-Cell Molecular Variability Preceding Irreversible Commitment in a Differentiation Process," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-35, December.
    19. Joby John & Jonathan B Dingwell & Joseph P Cusumano, 2016. "Error Correction and the Structure of Inter-Trial Fluctuations in a Redundant Movement Task," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-30, September.
    20. Christine Andres & Jan Hasenauer & Frank Allgower & Tim Hucho, 2012. "Threshold-Free Population Analysis Identifies Larger DRG Neurons to Respond Stronger to NGF Stimulation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-14, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002965. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.