Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français |

**|**HHS Author Manuscripts**|**PMC2924583

Formats

Article sections

Authors

Related links

Phys Rev Lett. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 20.

Published in final edited form as:

Published online 2009 February 13. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.068105

PMCID: PMC2924583

NIHMSID: NIHMS225830

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Phys Rev Lett

See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.

Robust oscillations have recently been observed in a synthetic gene network composed of coupled positive and negative feedback loops. Here we use deterministic and stochastic modeling to investigate how a *small* time delay in such regulatory networks can lead to strongly nonlinear oscillations that can be characterized by “degrade and fire” dynamics. We show that the period of the oscillations can be significantly greater than the delay time, provided the circuit components possess strong activation and tight repression. The variability of the period is strongly influenced by fluctuations near the oscillatory minima, when the number of regulatory molecules is small. We explore the effect of the positive feedback loop on the robustness of these oscillations.

Recently, we constructed a synthetic two-gene oscillator which exhibited highly robust and tunable oscillations [1]. The design of the oscillator was motivated by the original theoretical proposal [2] in which oscillations were due to the interplay of positive and negative feedback loops operating at different time scales. However, experimental results suggested that the core of the oscillator was a single multi-stage NFB circuit (Fig. 1), while the PFB loop helped to increase the robustness and tunability of oscillations. In that study [1] we also developed a detailed biochemical model of this circuit, which explicitly incorporated multiple steps leading from gene transcription to formation of mature protein multimers and protein-DNA interactions. Such models are useful for making testable predictions, however they are not transparent enough to permit analytical investigation and thus gaining qualitative insights into the mechanisms controlling the circuit dynamics. In particular, it was not clear how relatively small (3-5 min) delays caused by the intermediate steps in protein synthesis can lead to rather long-period (20-60 min) oscillations. In this Letter, we replace the feedback cascade (Fig. 1) by a single reaction with a fixed deterministic delay time. It is well known that delayed auto-repression can lead to oscillatory gene expression [3-8]. Here we demonstrate analytically that in a strongly nonlinear regime this system exhibits what we term *degrade-and-fire* (DF) oscillations, in analogy with integrate-and-fire models [9]. An essential feature of this regime is that the period of oscillations can be arbitrary long compared to the delay time. In this regime, we are able to derive analytic estimates for the mean period and its variance.

While the results are mostly presented for the NFB-only case, we also address the role of an additional PFB loop, which was present in the experimental realization of the oscillator [1]. Details of these calculations can be found in the Supplementary Information (SI) [10].

We consider a system with only two reactions: production of a repressor protein and its degradation. These reactions are characterized by the rates
${K}_{+}^{(r)}$ and
${K}_{-}^{(r)}$ to produce or degrade repressor, respectively. The production rate is negatively regulated by the repressor itself, and this reaction is assumed to take a finite time *τ* from the start to completion of a mature repressor protein,
${K}_{+}^{(r)}(t)=F({r}_{\tau}(t))$, where *r(t)* is the number of repressor molecules at time *t, r _{τ}(t)*

We simulated these two stochastic reactions using the extension of the Gillespie algorithm [12] proposed in [7] to treat delayed reactions. For sufficiently large *α* *γ _{r}*

(a) DF oscillations in the stochastic NFB-only system, with parameters *α* = 300, *γ*_{r} = 80, *C*_{0} = 10, *τ* = 1, *β* = 0.1, *R*_{0} = 1. (b) A magnified view of the deterministic trajectory near the production phase in the limit *β* **...**

DF oscillations consist of two main phases. Each oscillation begins with a “production” phase. During this phase the existing repressor concentration is too small to preclude transcription and nascent repressor is produced (to become active a time *τ* later). The second phase, which we call the “degradation” phase, primarily consists of the degradation of functional repressor. For the majority of the degradation phase, production is tightly repressed, and transcription begins only when the level of the repressor falls near the threshold value *C*_{0}. The onset of the production phase can be associated with time *t*_{on} defined by condition *F*(*r*_{on}) = *γ _{r}* (Fig. 2b). However, due to production delay, new repressor molecules do not appear

In the deterministic limit, the mass-action kinetics of delayed production and degradation can be expressed by a delay-differential equation

$$\dot{r}(t)=\frac{\alpha {C}_{0}^{2}}{{({C}_{0}+{r}_{\tau})}^{2}}-\frac{{\gamma}_{r}r(t)}{{R}_{0}+r(t)}-\beta r(t)$$

(1)

This equation describes a sequence of nearly triangular pulses of repressor similar to that of Fig. 2a, however with a constant amplitude and duration. The key to analytically solving Eq. (1) is to recognize that, in this strongly nonlinear regime of large-amplitude pulses, the production of repressor is negligibly small during most of the degradation phase. For simplicity of analysis, we further assume *R*_{0} → 0 and *β* = 0, in which case the decay becomes a zeroth-order reaction. While this assumption is not essential, it greatly simplifies the subsequent analysis. Note that in this approximation we have to augment the corresponding simplified model by the natural condition *r(t)* ≥ 0. In this case the solution during the degradation phase is linear in time,

$$r(t)\approx -{\gamma}_{r}(t-{t}_{0}),\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}t<{t}_{0}$$

(2)

Here *t*_{0} is the time at which *r* first reaches zero (see Fig. 2b). This law for linear decay is essentially independent of the amplitude of the previous pulse. Thus, individual pulses are decoupled from each other.

The structure of the pulse at *t* > *t*_{0} can be reconstructed iteratively based on the knowledge of the decay phase solution (2) at *t* < *t*_{0}. In the integral form

$$r(t)-r({t}_{i})={\mathit{\int}}_{{t}_{i}-\tau}^{t-\tau}\mathit{dt}\prime \frac{\alpha}{{\left(1+\frac{r(t\prime )}{{C}_{0}}\right)}^{2}}-{\gamma}_{r}(t-{t}_{i})$$

(3)

for some times *t, t _{i}*. Eq. (3) advances the repressor trajectory in intervals of time duration

The degradation of a burst of repressor takes an approximate time *T _{D}* =

$${P}_{0}\approx (\alpha -{\gamma}_{r})\left[\tau -\frac{{C}_{0}}{{\gamma}_{r}}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{{\gamma}_{r}}}-1\right)\right]$$

(4)

As seen from this expression, the period of oscillations can be arbitrarily large compared with the delay time *τ*, depending on the production and decay rates of the protein. This estimate for the period has a maximum at a certain *γ _{r}* and becomes zero when

The case of nonzero but small *β* (*βτ* 1) can also be analyzed. Production bursts of repressor are only slightly perturbed in this case. However, if the number of produced proteins *P* *γ _{r}/β*, the initial degradation of the burst is exponential rather than linear, and so the time

Stochasticity in gene networks may arise due to randomness of discrete, molecular reactions (intrinsic noise) and randomness associated with fluctuating environments (extrinsic noise) [14-16]; here we only address the former. Enhanced variability, e.g. due to transcriptional or translational bursting [17], is also not treated here but can be included readily.

Stochastic DF oscillations can be approximated by a rapid burst of repressor with random magnitude *P* that is subsequently degraded through a zeroth-order reaction with rate *γ _{r}* (again, we assume

$$\langle \mathrm{\Delta}{T}^{2}\rangle =\frac{\langle \mathrm{\Delta}{P}^{2}\rangle}{{\gamma}_{r}^{2}}+\frac{\langle P\rangle}{{\gamma}_{r}^{2}}$$

(5)

where *P* and Δ*P*^{2} denote mean and variance of the burst amplitude. The first term in Eq. (5) is due to production variability and the second term is due to stochasticity of the degradation process.

Analogous to the deterministic case, the statistics of the burst amplitude can be found by integrating birth and death events for *r(t)* from time *t*_{on} + *τ* to some later time, e.g. *t*_{on} + 3*τ*, assuming that the statistics of trajectories for earlier times are known. Assuming that the probability of *r* = 0 for *t* > *t*_{on} + *τ* is small, the equations for the evolution of the mean repressor concentration *r(t)* and the correlation *k* (*r*(*t*_{2}), *r*(*t*_{1})) read

$$\langle r(t)\rangle -\langle r({t}_{i})\rangle ={\mathit{\int}}_{{t}_{i}}^{t}\mathit{dt}\prime \langle \upsilon ({r}_{\tau}(t\prime ))\rangle $$

(6)

$$\begin{array}{l}k(r({t}_{2}),r({t}_{1}))-k(r({t}_{i}),r({t}_{i}))={\mathit{\int}}_{{t}_{i}}^{{t}_{1}}\mathit{dt}\prime \langle B({r}_{\tau}(t\prime ))\rangle \\ \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}+{\mathit{\int}}_{{t}_{i}}^{{t}_{2}}{\mathit{dt}}_{2}^{\prime}{\mathit{\int}}_{{t}_{i}}^{{t}_{1}}{\mathit{dt}}_{1}^{\prime}k(\upsilon ({r}_{\tau}({t}_{2}^{\prime})),\upsilon ({r}_{\tau}({t}_{1}^{\prime})))\\ \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}+{\mathit{\int}}_{{t}_{i}}^{{t}_{1}}\mathit{dt}\prime k(r({t}_{i}),\upsilon ({r}_{\tau}(t\prime )))+{\mathit{\int}}_{{t}_{i}}^{{t}_{2}}\mathit{dt}\prime k(r({t}_{i}),\upsilon ({r}_{\tau}(t\prime )))\end{array}$$

(7)

with *t _{i}* +

For very small *r*_{on}, the production rate is effectively binary: it is zero when *r _{τ}* > 0 and

Equations (6), (7) can be solved perturbatively by writing *r(t)* = *r(t)* + *δr(t)*, with *δr(t)* being a small stochastic correction with zero mean. This approximation is used to investigate oscillations in the limit *γ _{r}τ*

The genetic oscillator built in [1] featured two coupled feedback loops, one negative and another positive. The two proteins are encoded by two genes which are under the control of identical hybrid promoters. These promoters are activated by one of the proteins (activator) and repressed by the other (repressor). It was demonstrated experimentally that the dual feedback loop design provided enhanced robustness and tunability of oscillations as compared with a NFB-only design. To address this issue theoretically, we extend our delayed model system to include two additional reactions of production and degradation of activator *a*. Following the experiment, we assume that transcription of *r* and *a* genes is controlled by identical promoters, but the delay in producing mature activator proteins *τ _{a}* is different from

In the DF limit, the inclusion of the PFB does not drastically alter the basic staging of phases in NFB oscillations in Fig. 2b. PFB with high *f* and low *τ _{a}* can produce robust and large amplitude oscillations that maintain a relatively low coefficient of variation (C.V.), i.e. with C.V. similar to the NFB-only case with basal rate

Synthetic gene circuits designed around a core delayed NFB circuit offer a promising strategy for generating robust genetic oscillations. Here we have presented an analysis of a simple model for such oscillators. A NFB-only system with strong tightly repressible promoter and slow degradation can produce *degrade-and-fire* oscillations with a period much larger than the delay time and with relatively small period variability. The main source of oscillation variability is the short protein production phase when the number of repressor molecules is low. An additional fast PFB loop in this model was found to be able to increase the mean period and maintain low C.V. compared to an analogous NFB-only system. This result is similar to recent findings regarding the role of positive feedback in biological oscillations [21]. However, it should be noted that while other coupled positive and negative feedback biological oscillator models [2, 22] rely on a separation of time scales between the two components to create relaxation oscillations, here the mechanism is based on the presence of delay in the *negative* feedback loop and can function even in the absence of PFB. Note that a different mechanism of long-period oscillations in cell dynamics have been recently investigated in [8].

We believe that the results presented here are also relevant for many naturally occurring gene oscillators, such as circadian clocks and Hes1 system [23-25]. While they are generally made up of many interdependent genes and proteins, one can often identify a core NFB loop similar to Fig. 1.

We thank M. Mackey for illuminating discussions. This work was supported by NIH grants GM69811-01 and GM082168-02.

1. Stricker J, Cookson S, Bennett M, Mather W, Tsimring L, Hasty J. Nature. 2008;456:516. [PubMed]

2. Hasty J, Dolnik M, Rottschafer V, Collins JJ. Phys Rev Lett. 2002;88:148101. [PubMed]

3. MacDonald N, Theor J. Biol. 1977;67:549. [PubMed]

4. Bliss RD, Painter PR, Marr AG, Theor J. Biol. 1982;97:177. [PubMed]

5. Mackey MC, Nechaeva IG. Phys Rev E. 1995;52:3366. [PubMed]

6. Monk N. Curr Biol. 2003;13:1409. [PubMed]

7. Bratsun D, Volfson D, Tsimring LS, Hasty J. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:14593. [PubMed]

8. Pujo-Menjouet L, Bernard S, Mackey M, Hasty J. SIAM J Appl Dyn Syst. 2005;4:312.

9. Knight BW. J Gen Phys. 1972;59:734. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

10. Supplementary Information supplied by EPAPS

11. While nonlinearity of the delayed negative feedback loop is important, the qualitative features of protein oscillations are weakly sensitive to the specific form of the Hill function, see SI for more details

12. Gillespie DT. J Phys Chem. 1977;81:2340.

13. For very large *α* *γ*_{r}((*γ*_{r}τ/C_{0})+1)^{2} there exists another regime in which the repressor levels fail to reach zero, the amplitude of oscillations becomes small and the period is approximately 4*τ*

14. Elowitz MB, Levine AJ, Siggia ED, Swain PS. Science. 2002;297:1183. [PubMed]

15. Ozbudak E, Thattai M, Kurtser I, Grossman A, van Oudenaarden A. Nature Gen. 2002;31:69. [PubMed]

16. Raser J, O’Shea E. Science. 2005;309:2010. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

17. Golding I, Paulsson J, Zawilski SM, Cox EC. Cell. 2005;123:1025. [PubMed]

18. Gardiner C. Handbook of Stochastic Methods. Springer-Verlag; New York: 2004.

19. Kepler TB, Elston TC. Biophys J. 2001;81:3116. [PubMed]

20. This approximation is not valid at *r* = 0, however this region mostly contributes to the Poisson-like variability and can be treated separately

21. Tsai TY, Choi YS, Ma W, Pomerening JR, Tang C, Ferrell JE. Science. 2008;321:126. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

22. Wang J, Xu L, Wang E. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:12271. [PubMed]

23. Barkai N, Leibler S. Nature. 2000;403:267. [PubMed]

24. Goldbeter A. Nature. 2002;420:238. [PubMed]

25. Bernard S, Čajavec B, Pujo-Menjouet L, Mackey M, Herzel H. Phil Trans Roy Soc A. 2006;364:1155. [PubMed]

PubMed Central Canada is a service of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) working in partnership with the National Research Council's national science library in cooperation with the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine(NCBI/NLM). It includes content provided to the PubMed Central International archive by participating publishers. |